12. Plaintiff brings claims, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “FRCP”)  Rule 23, individually and on behalf of the following consumer class (the “Class”):   All New York consumers who received a collection letter from the  Defendant  attempting to collect an obligation owed to or allegedly owed to Santander  Bank, N.A. (“Santander”), that contain the alleged violation arising from  Defendant's violation of 15 U.S.C. §§1692g and 1692e, et seq.   The Class period begins one year to the filing of this Action.   13. The Class satisfies all the requirements of Rule 23 of the FRCP for maintaining a class action:   Upon information and belief, the Class is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable because there are hundreds and/or thousands of  persons who have received debt collection letters and/or notices from  Defendant that violate specific provisions of the FDCPA. Plaintiff is  complaining of a standard form letter and/or notice that is sent to hundreds of  persons (See Exhibit A, except that the undersigned attorney has, in  accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 partially redacted the financial account  numbers in an effort to protect Plaintiff’s privacy);   There are questions of law and fact which are common to the Class and which  predominate over questions affecting any individual Class member.  These  common questions of law and fact include, without limitation:  a.  Whether Defendant violated various provisions of the FDCPA;  b.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been injured by Defendant’s  conduct;  4  c.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class have sustained damages and are  entitled to restitution as a result of Defendant’s wrongdoing and if  so, what is the proper measure and appropriate statutory formula to  be applied in determining such damages and restitution; and  d.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to declaratory and/or  injunctive relief.   Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class, which all arise from the same  operative facts and are based on the same legal theories.   Plaintiff has no interest adverse or antagonistic to the interest of the other  members of the Class.   Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the Class and has  retained experienced and competent attorneys to represent the Class.   A Class Action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the claims herein asserted. Plaintiff anticipates that no unusual  difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action.   A Class Action will permit large numbers of similarly situated persons to  prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously and without the  duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would  engender.  Class treatment will also permit the adjudication of relatively small  claims by many Class members who could not otherwise afford to seek legal  redress for the wrongs complained of herein.  Absent a Class Action, class  members will continue to suffer losses of statutory protected rights as well as  5  monetary damages. If Defendant’s conduct is allowed to proceed without remedy  they will continue to reap and retain the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains.   Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class,  thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding  declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole.  14. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered “1” through “13” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set  forth at length herein.   15. Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for  personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal  Services, telephone and Internet.   16. Upon information and belief, within the last year Defendant commenced efforts to collect an  alleged consumer “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5), when it mailed a Collection  Letter to Plaintiff seeking to collect an unpaid balance allegedly owed to Santander.   17. On or around July 11, 2016, Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter. See Exhibit A.   18. The letter was sent or caused to be sent by persons employed by Defendant as a “debt  collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).   19. The letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2).   20. The letter concerns a debt that was incurred on a credit card.   21. The credit card accrued interest.   22. The credit card accrued late fees.   23. Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff whether or not such fees were continuing to accrue.  6   24. As a result, Plaintiff and the least sophisticated consumer were left in the dark as to the  amount due and owing in violation of §1692g.   25. Congress adopted the debt validation provisions of section 1692g to guarantee that  consumers would receive adequate notice of their rights under the FDCPA. Wilson, 225 F.3d  at 354, citing Miller v. Payco–General Am. Credits, Inc., 943 F.2d 482, 484 (4th Cir.1991).     26. The rights afforded to consumers under Section 1692g(a) are amongst the most powerful  protections provided by the FDCPA.     27. Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA created the risk of real harm that Plaintiff would make  payment only to be contacted again later due to other charges that may have accrued between  the date of the letter and the date payment was made.   28. Defendant’s actions as described herein are part of a pattern and practice used to collect  consumer debts.   29. Defendants could have taken the steps necessary to bring its actions within compliance with  the FDCPA, but neglected to do so and failed to adequately review its actions to ensure  compliance with the law.   30. On information and belief, Defendants sent a written communication, in the form annexed  hereto as Exhibit A to at least 50 natural persons in the State of New York within one year of  the date of this Complaint.  First Count  Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g  Failure to Adequately Convey the Amount of the Debt   31. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered “1” through “30” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set  forth at length herein.  7   32. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g 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.   33. One such requirement is that the debt collector provide “the amount of the debt.” 15 U.S.C. §  1692g(a)(1).   34. A debt collector has the obligation not just to convey the amount of the debt, but also to  convey such clearly.   35. Defendant’s letters to Plaintiff sets forth a “Balance” of $856.64.   36. Defendant’s letters fail to disclose whether the balance may increase due to interest and fees.   37. The least sophisticated consumer would be confused as to how she could satisfy the debt.   38. The least sophisticated consumer might believe she could pay the debt in full by remitting the  sum stated in the letter at any time after he received the letter.   39. Such a belief may or may not be correct, as Defendant has failed to disclose whether the  balance may increase due to interest and fees.   40. If interest continues to accrue after the date of the letter, the least sophisticated consumer  would not know how to satisfy the debt because the Defendant has failed to indicate the  applicable interest rate.   41. Conversely, the least sophisticated consumer might believe she may pay the debt in full by  remitting the sum stated in the letter at any time after the date of the letter.   42. Defendant failed to clearly state the amount of the debt.   43. Because of this failure, the least sophisticated consumer would likely be confused as to the  amount of the debt.  8   44. Because of this failure, the least sophisticated consumer would likely be uncertain as to the  amount of the debt.   45. Defendant has violated the FDCPA because the letter fails to disclose whether the balance  may increase due to interest and fees.   46. Defendant has violated § 1692g as it failed to clearly, explicitly and unambiguously convey  the amount of the debt.   47. Nor has Defendant provided the safe harbor language adopted by the Second Circuit.1   48. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant's conduct  violated Section 1692g et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs and  attorneys’ fees.  Second Count  15 U.S.C. §1692e et seq.  False or Misleading Representations as to Status of Debt   49. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered “1” through “48” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set  forth at length herein.    50. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e, a debt collector is prohibited from using false, deceptive, or  misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt.    51. The said letter stated in pertinent part as follows: “Interest “$0.00”   52.  The said letter also stated in pertinent part: “Costs $0.00.”   53. Defendant did not have any legal basis for adding “Costs $0.00” onto Plaintiff's alleged debt.  1 Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs., LLC, Nos. 15-1584(L), 15- 1597(Con), 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5327, at *8 (2d Cir.  Mar. 22, 2016) ("The district court also expressed a concern that requiring debt collectors to disclose this  information might lead to more abusive practices, as debt collectors could use the threat of interest and fees to  coerce consumers into paying their debts. This is a legitimate concern. To alleviate it, we adopt the "safe harbor"  approach adopted by the Seventh Circuit in Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, & Clark, L.L.C.,  214 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2000)...The court[in Miller] held that a debt collector who used this form would not violate  the [FDCPA], "provided, of course, that the information [the debt collector] furnishes is accurate.") (emphasis  added).  9   54. The least sophisticated consumer could be led to believe that although there is no collection fee  at the time he received the said letter, he may be liable to such a fee in the future.   55. The said letter language implies a threat, and is confusing to the least sophisticated consumer  so as to falsely imply that the creditor is entitled to receive a collection fee.   56. Defendant was not entitled to impose a collection fee as a permissible fee that a creditor may  charge in connection with a consumer credit transaction. Tylke v. Diversified Adjustment  Service, Inc., No. 14-CV-748 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 28, 2014). ([I]t is possible that, as the  defendant suggests, an "unsophisticated consumer" might understand the statement to be  explaining that no part of the debt is a "collection fee" even though the (creditor’s) agreement  allows for one. On the other hand, it is also possible that an "unsophisticated consumer"  would interpret the statement to mean that there is no "collection fee" now but that one could  be assessed later on. In other words, the inclusion of a collection fee, even one showing a  balance of zero, could imply the future possibility of one. Such a reading is neither bizarre  nor idiosyncratic.)   57. Said language can be reasonably read to have two or more different meanings, one of which is  false. Pipiles v. Credit Bureau of Lockport, Inc., 886 F.2d 22, 25 (2d Cir. 1989). (Because the  collection notice was reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading, it was deceptive within  the meaning of the Act.), Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314, 1319 (2d Cir. 1993). (Collection  notices are deceptive if they are open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one  of which is inaccurate.), Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, 34 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1996). (A  collection notice is deceptive when it can be reasonably read to have two or more different  meanings, one of which is inaccurate. The fact that the notice's terminology was vague or  uncertain will not prevent it from being held deceptive under § 1692e(10) of the Act.)  10   58. Defendant, as a matter of pattern and practice, mails letters, or causes the mailing of letters,  to debtors using language substantially similar or materially identical to that utilized by  Defendant in mailing the above-cited letter to Plaintiff.   59. The letters Defendant mails, or causes to be mailed, are produced by Defendant's concerted  efforts and integrated or shared technologies including computer programs, mailing houses,  and electronic databases.   60. The said letter is a standardized form letter.   61. Defendant's July 11, 2016 letter is in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5)  1692e(10), 1692f and 1692f(1) for the use of false and deceptive means; for falsely  representing the character, amount, or legal status of a debt; for the false representation of  compensation which may be lawfully received by a debt collector for the collection of a debt;  for threatening to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be  taken; for the use of unfair and unconscionable means to collect on a debt; and for attempting  to collect an amount unless such an amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating  the debt or permitted by law.   62. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant's conduct  violated Section 1692g et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs and  attorneys’ fees.   Third Count  15 U.S.C. §1692g et seq.  Validation of Debts   63. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered “1” through “62” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set  forth at length herein.  11   64. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g 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.   65. One such request is that the debt collector provide “the name of the creditor to whom the  debt is owed.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2).   66. A debt collector has the obligation not just to convey the name of the creditor to whom the  debt is owed, but also to convey such clearly.   67. A debt collector has the obligation not just to convey the name of the creditor to whom the  debt is owed, but also to state such explicitly.   68. Merely naming the creditor without specifically identifying the entity as the current creditor to  whom the debt is owed is not sufficient to comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2).   69. Even if a debt collector conveys the required information, the debt collector nonetheless  violates the FDCPA if it conveys that information in a confusing or contradictory fashion so  as to cloud the required message with uncertainty.   70. When determining whether the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed has been  conveyed clearly, an objective standard, measured by how the “least sophisticated consumer”  would interpret the notice, is applied.   71. Defendant's letter fails to explicitly identify the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.   72.  Defendant’s July 11, 2016 letter to Plaintiff fails to identify any creditor to whom the debt is  owed.   73. Indeed, Defendant’s letter fails to identify any entity or individual as a “creditor.”   74. Defendant’s letter merely states, “Re: Santander Bank, N.A., formerly Sovereign Bank, N.A.”  12   75. The letter fails to indicate whether the “Re:” refers to Plaintiff’s creditor.   76. The letter fails to indicate whether the “Re:” refers to the creditor to whom the debt is owed.   77. The letter fails to indicate whether the “Re:” refers to the original creditor or the current  creditor to whom the debt is owed.   78. Defendant’s letter states, “The above referenced account has been referred to our offices for  collection.”   79. The letter fails to indicate who referred the account to Defendant.   80. Defendant failed to clearly state the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.   81. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be confused as to the creditor to whom the  debt is owed.   82. Defendant has violated § 1692g as it failed to clearly and explicitly convey the name of the  creditor to whom the debt is owed.   83. Defendant could have taken the steps necessary to bring its actions within compliance with  the FDCPA, but neglected to do so and failed to adequately review its actions to ensure  compliance with the law. 