15.  Plaintiff received medical services from St. Charles- Catholic Health Services of  Long Island.    16.  At the time of receipt of the medical services, Plaintiff had health insurance under  a Preferred Provider Organization (“PPO”) through AETNA.    17.  At the time of the receipt of the medical services, Plaintiff provided the insurance  information to the medical facility.   18.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiff also documented the insurance details in the  intake papers at the medical facility.   19.  The medical facility nevertheless billed Plaintiff $1,042.00 (“the alleged Debt”).      20.  New York State law forbids the billing of any unpaid balance directly to a patient  who is covered by a PPO.   21.  The alleged Debt represents such unlawful billing.   22.  Despite this, at an exact time known only to Defendant, the alleged Debt was  assigned or otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection.    23.  In its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, Defendant decided to contact Plaintiff by  written correspondence.   24.  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.   25.  As part of its utilization of the third-party vendor, Defendant conveyed information  regarding the alleged Debt to the third-party vendor by electronic means.  4   26.  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 account number, the entity  to which Plaintiff allegedly owed the debt, and the fact that the alleged Debt concerned Plaintiff’s  medical treatment, among other things.    27.  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).   28.  The third-party vendor then populated some or all this information into a prewritten  template, printed, and mailed the correspondence to Plaintiff at Defendant’s direction.   29.  That correspondence, dated December 29, 2020, was received, and read by  Plaintiff.  (A true and accurate copy of that correspondence (the “Letter”) is annexed hereto as  “Exhibit 1.”)   30.  The Letter, which conveyed information about the alleged Debt, is a  “communication” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).   31.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e protects Plaintiff’s concrete interests and rights.    32.  Plaintiff has the interest and right to be free from collection efforts on debts Plaintiff  does not owe.     33.  Plaintiff has the interest and right to be free from unwarranted threats to Plaintiff’s  credit rating.   34.  Plaintiff has the interest and right to be free from the fear of being sued on debts  Plaintiff does not owe.   35.  Plaintiff has the interest and right to be free from deceptive and/or misleading  communications from debt collectors, including Defendant.     36.  As set forth herein, Defendant deprived Plaintiff of these rights.  5   37.  Plaintiff’s injury is “particularized” and “actual” in that the conduct that deprived  Plaintiff of his rights was directed by Defendant to Plaintiff specifically.    38.  Plaintiff’s injury is directly traceable to Defendant’s conduct because Defendant  initiated the communications, and but for Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff would not have been  deprived of his rights.     39.  Plaintiff has been misled by Defendant’s conduct.    40.  Defendant’s conduct as described in this Complaint was willful, with the purpose  to either harm Plaintiff or with reckless disregard for the harm to Plaintiff that could result from  Defendant’s conduct.   41.  Plaintiff justifiably fears that, absent this Court’s intervention, Defendant will  continue to use abusive, deceptive, unfair, and unlawful means in its attempts to collect the alleged  Debt and other alleged debts.   42.  Plaintiff justifiably fears that, absent this Court’s intervention, Defendant will  ultimately cause Plaintiff unwarranted economic harm.   43.  Plaintiff justifiably fears that, absent this Court’s intervention, Defendant will  ultimately cause Plaintiff unwarranted harm to Plaintiff’s credit rating.   44.  Plaintiff justifiably fears that, absent this Court’s intervention, Defendant will  ultimately cause Plaintiff to be sued for a debt Plaintiff does not owe.     45.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff wasted time, was caused to be  confused and unsure as to Plaintiff’s rights, and ultimately sought counsel and advice causing  Plaintiff the risk of incurring damages including reasonable attorneys’ fees in reviewing Plaintiff’s  rights under the law and prosecuting this claim.  6   46.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff’s counsel was caused to expend time,  energy, and money to investigate Plaintiff’s rights under the law and the legitimacy of the alleged  Debt.   47.  The deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights will be redressed by a favorable decision  herein.     48.  A favorable decision herein would redress Plaintiff’s injury with money damages.    49.  A favorable decision herein would serve to deter Defendant from further similar  conduct.  50.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein.     51.  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.”   52.  The third-party vendor does not fall within any of the exceptions provided for in 15  U.S.C. § 1692c(b).   53.  Plaintiff never consented to Defendant’s communication with the third-party  vendor concerning the alleged Debt.   54.  Plaintiff never consented to Defendant’s communication with the third-party  vendor concerning Plaintiff’s personal and/or confidential information.   55.  Plaintiff never consented to Defendant’s communication with anyone concerning  the alleged Debt or concerning Plaintiff’s personal and/or confidential information.  7   56.  Upon information and belief, Defendant has utilized a third-party vendor for these  purposes thousands of times.   57.  Defendant utilizes a third-party vendor in this regard for the sole purpose of  maximizing its profits.   58.  Defendant utilizes a third-party vendor without regard to the propriety and privacy  of the information which it discloses to such third-party.   59.  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.   60.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) when it disclosed information about  Plaintiff’s alleged Debt to the third-party vendor.   61.  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.     62.  The unauthorized disclosure of a consumer’s private and sensitive information is  both unfair and unconscionable.   63.  Defendant disclosed Plaintiff’s private and sensitive information to the third-party  vendor.     64.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f when it disclosed information about  Plaintiff’s alleged Debt to the third-party vendor.   65.  For the foregoing reasons, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c(b) and 1692f  and is liable to Plaintiff therefor.  66.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein.   8   67.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e provides, generally, that a debt collector may not use any false,  deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.   68.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) prohibits the false representation of the character, amount,  or legal status of any debt.   69.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) prohibits the use of any false representation or deceptive  means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.     70.  An allegation by a debt collector that a consumer owes a certain amount of money  when the consumer does not that amount is a violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(2)(A) and  1692e(10).   71.  As set forth in paragraphs 15 through 21 of this Complaint, Plaintiff did not owe  the alleged Debt.   72.  As such, Defendant’s allegation that Plaintiff owed the alleged Debt is a false,  deceptive, and/or misleading representation made in connection with the collection of the alleged  debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.   73.  Defendant’s allegation that Plaintiff owed the alleged Debt is a false representation  of the character, amount, and/or legal status of the alleged debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §  1692e(2)(A).   74.  Defendant’s allegation that Plaintiff owed the alleged Debt is a false representation  made in an attempt to collect the alleged debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10).   75.  For the foregoing reasons, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(2)(A)  and 1692e(10) and is liable to Plaintiff therefor.   76.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein.  9   77.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e provides, generally, that a debt collector may not use any false,  deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.    78.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) prohibits the use of any false representation or deceptive  means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.     79.  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.      80.  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.    81.  A collection letter also violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692e if it is reasonably susceptible to  an inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated consumer.     82.  For this reason, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e requires debt collectors, when they notify  consumers of their creditor, to disclose such information clearly and accurately.     83.  The failure to provide the aforementioned disclosure makes the collection letter  deceptive under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.   84.  The Letter states the Creditor as Tie Account Header (See below).   85.  The Letter fails to clarify what Tie Account Header is or what it means.    86.  Therefore, Defendant did not clearly and accurately convey the Creditor of the  alleged debt and made its Letter susceptible to an inaccurate reading and confusing interpretation.   87.  For the foregoing reasons, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692e(10)  and is liable to Plaintiff therefor.    88.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all  10  consumers similarly situated in the State of New York.   89.  Plaintiff seeks to certify two classes 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.  ii. All consumers to whom Defendant sent a collection letter stating the  creditor entity to be Tie Account Header (See below), which letter was  sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action to the  present.   90.  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.   91.  The Class consists of more than thirty-five persons.   92.  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.   93.  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.   94.  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  11  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.  Violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692e(10)   Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) and § 1692f   Violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10)  