38.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the aforementioned allegations as if restated fully  herein word for word.   39.  The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendant and its’ agents constituted  numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA including, but not limited to, each and every  one of the cited provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., with respect to the Plaintiff.   40.  The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by using a false, deceptive, or misleading  representation or means as set forth above factually and through the Exhibits.   41.  The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by using a false representation of  the amount of the debt and/or 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2)(B) by using a false, deceptive, and misleading  representation concerning a service it rendered for which it was not legally entitled to receive  compensation for the foregoing reasons.   43.  Each violation of the RCPA by the Defendant as outlined in this Complaint is  likewise a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f as an “unfair or unconscionable means to attempt to  collect a debt.”   44.  This jurisdiction is reliant upon the “least sophisticated debtor” standard to determine  whether a communication might effectively deceive an unsophisticated consumer under 15  U.S.C. 1692.  Smith v Computer Credit, 167 F.3d 1052 (6th Cir. 1999).  More specifically, “the  fact that a false statement may be obviously false to those who are trained and experienced does  not change its character, nor take away its power to deceive others less experienced.”  Federal  Trade Commission v Standard Education Society, 302 U.S. 112, 116, 50 S.Ct. 113, 115, 82 L.Ed.  141 (1937).  It seems sensible to suggest that attempts such as those by the Defendant in this case  to collect a “convenience” fee from the Plaintiff which it was not permitted by contract or law to  collect from the Plaintiff would have the effect of confusing a less sophisticated debtor such as  the Plaintiff, which it in fact did.   45.  For a communication to be in connection with the collection of a debt, an animating  purpose of the communication must be to induce payment by the debtor.” Grden v Leikin Ingber  & Winters PC, 643 F.3d 169, 173 (6th Cir. 2011).  All communications from the Defendant, their  agents, and representatives to the Plaintiff, both orally and in writing, shared the same animating  purpose- to coerce the Plaintiff into ultimately paying them amounts she should not have been  legally required to pay.   47.  The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the aforementioned allegations as if restated  fully herein word for word.   48.  The Defendant is a “Regulated Person” as that term is defined in the Michigan  Collection Practices Act (“RCPA”), at MCL § 445.251.   49.  The Plaintiff is a “Consumer” as that term is defined at MCL § 445.251.   50.  The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendant and its’ agents constituted  numerous violations of the RCPA.   51.  The Defendant violated M.C.L. § 445.252(a) by communicating with the Plaintiff and  class members in a misleading or deceptive manner by forwarding the Plaintiff a collection letter  and on their website outlining a mandatory “convenience fee” assessed to the Plaintiff or class  members for the processing of electronic transactions which the Defendant possessed no legal or  contractual right to pursue.   52.  The Defendant violated M.C.L. § 445.252(e) for the foregoing reasons.   53.  The Defendant violated M.C.L. 445.252(n) by using a harassing, oppressive, and/or  abusive method(s) to collect the debt at issue.   54.  The Defendant violated M.C.L. 445.252(q) by failing to implement a procedure  designed to prevent each of the above-listed RCPA violations by the Defendant’s agents and/or  employees.   56.  The Defendant’s foregoing acts in attempting to collect this alleged debt violated  MCL §445.252f, which prohibits a Regulated Person from “misrepresenting in a communication  with a debt any of the following: (i) the legal status of a legal action being taken or threatened  and/or (ii) the legal rights of the creditor or debtor.”   57.  The Defendant, specifically by way of the communications between its’ agents and  representatives and the Plaintiffs and class members, clearly misrepresented to the Plaintiff and  class members at a minimum whether they had provided sufficient verification of their legal right  to collect upon the underlying debt at issue.   58.  The Plaintiff and class members have suffered damages as a result of these violations  of the Michigan Collection Practices Act.   59.  These violations of the RCPA were willful, and as a result the Plaintiff is entitled to  actual damages above $50.00 pursuant to M.C.L. § 445.257; statutory damages in an amount up  to $150.00 pursuant to M.C.L. § 445.257; and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs pursuant  to M.C.L. § 445.257.    60.  This action is brought as a class action.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of  herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure.   61.  The Plaintiff seeks to certify a single class as set forth below.   63.  With respect to the Second (RCPA) Plaintiff Class, this claim is brought on behalf of  a class of (a) all persons with addresses in the State of Michigan; (b) to whom the Defendant  charged a “$5.00 convenience fee” for the processing of payments made to the Defendant  through its website payment portal on www.bayareacredit.com; without any contractual or legal  authorization;(c) in an attempt to collect a debt that purportedly was incurred for personal,  family, or household; (d) during the period beginning six years prior to the filing of this action  and ending 21 days after the filing of this action.    64.  The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the business records  of the Defendant and its payment portal of its website.   65.  Excluded from the Plaintiff Classes are the Defendant and all officers, members,  partners, managers, directors, and employees of the Defendant and each of their respective  immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action and all members of their  respective immediate families.   66.  There are questions of law and fact common to the First Plaintiff Class, which  common issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members.  The  principal issue is whether the Defendant’s mandatory requirement that a debtor pay a “$5.00  convenience fee” through the collection portal on the Defendant’s website violated the foregoing  sections of the FDCPA and RCPA.   68.  The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff Class  defined in this complaint.  Plaintiff has retained counsel with experience in handling consumer  lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and neither the Plaintiffs nor their attorney have  any interests which might cause them to not vigorously pursue this action.   70.  Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure is appropriate because adjudications with respect to individual members create a risk  of inconsistent or varying adjudications which could establish incompatible standards of conduct  for the Defendant, who collects debt throughout the United States of America.   71.  Certification of a class(es) under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure is appropriate for:  “a determination regarding the Defendant’s collection of a mandatory convenience  fee of “$5.00 convenience fee” through its payment portal on its website forced on  class members such as the Plaintiffs would violate both the RCPA and FDCPA and  permit the Plaintiff Class to obtain injunctive relief pursuant to MCL 445.257(1).”   72.  Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is  also appropriate in that the questions of law and fact common to members of the Plaintiff Class  predominate over any questions affecting an individual member, and a class action is superior to  other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.  