15.  Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt (“the alleged Debt”).   16.  The alleged Debt is an alleged obligation of Plaintiff to pay money arising out of a  transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the  transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.   17.  The alleged Debt does not arise from any business enterprise of Plaintiff.   18.  The alleged Debt is a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).   19.  At an exact time known only to Defendant, the alleged Debt was assigned or  otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection.    20.  At the time the alleged Debt was assigned or otherwise transferred to Defendant for  collection, the alleged Debt was in default.   21.  In its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, Defendant decided to contact Plaintiff by  written correspondence.   22.  Rather than preparing and mailing such written correspondence to Plaintiff on its  own, Defendant decided to utilize a third-party vendor to perform such activities on its behalf.   23.  As part of its utilization of the third-party vendor, Defendant conveyed information  regarding the alleged Debt to the third-party vendor.   24.  The information conveyed by Defendant to the third-party vendor included  Plaintiff’s status as a debtor, the precise amount of the alleged Debt, the entity to which Plaintiff  allegedly owed the debt, among other things.    25.  Defendant’s conveyance of the information regarding the alleged Debt to the third- party vendor is a “communication” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).  4   26.  The third-party vendor then populated some or all this information into a prewritten  template, printed, and mailed the letter to Plaintiff at Defendant’s direction.   27.  That letter, dated December 15, 2020, was received and read by Plaintiff.  (A true  and accurate copy of that collection letter (the “Letter”) is annexed hereto as “Exhibit 1.”)   28.  The Letter, which conveyed information about the alleged Debt, is a  “communication” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).   29.  The Letter was the initial written communication Plaintiff received from Defendant  concerning the alleged Debt.  30.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein.     31.  15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) provides that, subject to several exceptions not applicable  here, “a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt,” with  anyone other than the consumer “without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the  debt collector.”   32.  The third-party vendor does not fall within any of the exceptions provided for in 15  U.S.C. § 1692c(b).   33.  Plaintiff never consented to Defendant’s communication with the third-party  vendor concerning the alleged Debt.   34.  Plaintiff never consented to Defendant’s communication with the third-party  vendor concerning Plaintiff’s personal and/or confidential information.   35.  Plaintiff never consented to Defendant’s communication with anyone concerning  the alleged Debt or concerning Plaintiff’s personal and/or confidential information.  5   36.  Upon information and belief, Defendant has utilized a third-party vendor for these  purposes thousands of times.   37.  Defendant utilizes a third-party vendor in this regard for the sole purpose of  maximizing its profits.   38.  Defendant utilizes a third-party vendor without regard to the propriety and privacy  of the information which it discloses to such third-party.   39.  Defendant utilizes a third-party vendor with reckless disregard for the harm to  Plaintiff and other consumers that could result from Defendant’s unauthorized disclosure of such  private and sensitive information.   40.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) when it disclosed information about  Plaintiff’s alleged Debt to the third-party vendor.   41.  15 U.S.C. § 1692f provides that a debt collector may not use unfair or  unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.     42.  The unauthorized disclosure of a consumer’s private and sensitive information is  both unfair and unconscionable.   43.  Defendant disclosed Plaintiff’s private and sensitive information to the third-party  vendor.     44.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f when it disclosed information about  Plaintiff’s alleged Debt to the third-party vendor.   45.  For the foregoing reasons, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c(b) and 1692f  and is liable to Plaintiff therefor.  46.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein.   6   47.  15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) provides that within five days after the initial communication  with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the  information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the  consumer a written notice containing certain enumerated information.   48.  A debt collector has the obligation not just to convey the required information, but  also to convey such clearly.   49.  Even if a debt collector conveys the required information accurately, the debt  collector nonetheless violates the FDCPA if that information is overshadowed or contradicted by  other language in the communication.   50.  15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) provides that collection activities and communication during  the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s  right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.   51.  A collection activity or communication overshadows or contradicts the validation  notice if it would make the “least sophisticated consumer” uncertain or confused as to her rights.   52.  Demanding payment during the 30-day validation without explaining that such  demand does not override the consumer's right to dispute the debt is a violation of 15 U.S.C. §  1692g(b).   53.  Demanding payment during the 30-day validation without explaining that such  demand does not override the consumer's right to request validation of the debt is a violation of 15  U.S.C. § 1692g(b).   54.  Demanding payment during the 30-day validation without explaining that such  demand does not override the consumer's right to request the name and address of the original  creditor is a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).  7   55.  The Letter, dated December 15, 2020, demands payment by January 5, 2021.     56.  The Letter fails to advise that the demand for payment during the validation period   does not override the Plaintiff's right to dispute the alleged Debt.   57.  The Letter fails to advise that the demand for payment during the validation period   does not override the Plaintiff's right to request validation of the alleged Debt.   58.  The Letter fails to advise that the demand for payment during the validation period   does not override the Plaintiff's right to request the name and address of the original creditor.   59.  The least sophisticated consumer, upon reading demand for payment during the  validation period, could reasonably interpret the Letter to mean that even if she exercises her  validation rights, she must nevertheless pay by the due date.   60.  The least sophisticated consumer, upon reading demand for payment during the  validation period, and in the absence of any further explanation, could reasonably interpret the  Letter to mean that even if she disputes the validity of the alleged Debt, she must nevertheless pay  even during the verification process.     61.  As a result of the foregoing, the Letter would likely discourage the least  sophisticated consumer from exercising her right to dispute the alleged Debt.     62.  As a result of the foregoing, the Letter would likely discourage the least  sophisticated consumer from exercising her right to request validation of the alleged Debt.     63.  As a result of the foregoing, the demand for payment during the validation period   would likely make the least sophisticated consumer confused as to her rights.   64.  As a result of the foregoing, the demand for payment during the validation period   would likely make the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as to her rights.  8   65.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) as the demand for payment during the  validation period overshadows the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the alleged Debt.   66.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) as the demand for payment during the  validation period overshadows the disclosure of the consumer's right to request validation of the  alleged Debt.   67.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) as the demand for payment during the  validation period overshadows the disclosure of the consumer's right to request the name and  address of the original creditor.   68.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) as the demand for payment during the  validation period is inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the alleged  Debt.   69.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) as the demand for payment during the  validation period is inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right to request validation  of the alleged Debt.   70.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) as the demand for payment during the  validation period is inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right to request the name  and address of the original creditor.   71.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or  misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.   72.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) prohibits the use of any false representation or deceptive  means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.    9   73.  A debt collection practice can be a “false, deceptive, or misleading” practice in  violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e even if it does not fall within any of the subsections of 15 U.S.C. §  1692e.     74.  A collection letter violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692e if, in the eyes of the least  sophisticated consumer, it is open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which  is inaccurate.    75.  A collection letter also violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692e if it is reasonably susceptible to  an inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated consumer.     76.  The least sophisticated consumer could reasonably interpret the Letter to mean that  even if she exercises her validation rights, she must nevertheless pay the debt during the validation  period.     77.  The least sophisticated consumer, upon reading demand for payment during the  validation period , and in the absence of any further explanation, could reasonably interpret the  Letter to mean that even if she disputes the validity of the alleged Debt, she must nevertheless pay  the debt during the validation period even during the verification process.     78.  Because the Letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation it violates 15  U.S.C. § 1692e.   79.  Because the Letter is reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading by the least  sophisticated consumer it violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.   80.  For the foregoing reasons, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(b), 1692e and  1692e(10) and is liable to Plaintiff therefor.    81.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all  consumers similarly situated in the State of New York.  10   82.  Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of:  i. All consumers where Defendant sent information concerning the  consumer’s debt to a third-party vendor without obtaining the prior  consent of the consumer, which disclosure was made on or after a date  one year prior to the filing of this action to the present.   83.  This action seeks a finding that Defendant’s conduct violates the FDCPA and asks  that the Court award damages as authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.   84.  The Class consists of more than thirty-five persons.   85.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class.  Common questions of law  or fact raised by this action affect all members of the Class and predominate over any individual  issues.  Common relief is therefore sought on behalf of all members of the Class.  A class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.   86.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would  create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of the  Class, and a risk that any adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class would, as  a practical matter, either be dispositive of the interests of other members of the Class not party to  the adjudication, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.  Defendant  has acted in a manner applicable to the Class as a whole such that declaratory relief is warranted.   87.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the Class.  The management of the class is not extraordinarily difficult, and the factual and legal issues raised  by this action will not require extended contact with the members of the Class, because Defendant’s  conduct was perpetrated on all members of the Class and will be established by common proof.   Moreover, Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in actions brought under consumer protection  laws.  11  Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) and § 1692f   Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b)  