15.  On or about July 26, 2019 Rausch Sturm, acting on behalf of OneMain, filed a  small claims lawsuit against Plaintiff in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.  The case was styled  OneMain Financial Group, LLC v. Kari L. Makurat, Case No. 2019sc032975, Compl. filed July  26, 2019 (Milw. Cnty. Cir. Ct.) (the “Small Claims Case”).  A copy of the docket sheet as of July  20, 2020 is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.   16.  A default judgment was entered in the Small Claims Case on August 22, 2019.   17.  On or about January 29, 2020, Rausch Sturm, acting on behalf of OneMain, filed  an earnings garnishment notice in connection with the Small Claims Case.   18.  A copy of the earnings garnishment notice was mailed to Plaintiff.  A copy of this  earnings garnishment notice is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B.   19.  Upon information and belief, Exhibit B is a form earnings garnishment notice,  with information specific to Plaintiff inserted by computer.   20.  Upon information and belief, Exhibit B is a form earnings garnishment notice,  used by Defendants to attempt to collect alleged consumer debts.   21.  Exhibit B is confusing, misleading, and unfair to the unsophisticated consumer.   23.  Exhibit B contains a “To the debtor” section, which states in part:   24.  The “To the Debtor” section of Exhibit B states that the “Total amount of the  creditor’s claim” is $3,408.19, including an “unpaid balance on judgment” of $3,280.69 and  “estimated costs of this earnings garnishment” of $127.50.   25.  Exhibit B also contains a “To the clerk of court” section, which states in part:   26.  The “To the clerk of court” section of Exhibit B states that the “Amount of  Original Judgment” is $3,408.19 and the “Amount of Judgment Unpaid” is also $3,408.19.   28.  The “To the Garnishee” section of Exhibit B states that the “Total amount owed  by the debtor” is $3,535.69, of which $3,408.19 is the “Unpaid balance on judgment” and  $127.50 is the “Estimated costs of this earnings garnishment.”   29.  On the face of Exhibit B, it is impossible to determine the actual “unpaid balance  on judgment” when Exhibit B was mailed.  The “To the Debtor” section of Exhibit B states that  the “unpaid balance on judgment” was $3,280.69 but the “To the clerk of court” and “To the  Garnishee” sections of Exhibit B state that the “unpaid balance judgment” was $3,408.19.   30.  As a result, on the face of Exhibit B, it is impossible to determine the actual  “Total amount owed by the debtor” when Exhibit B was mailed, and thus the amount that  Defendants intended to garnish.  The “To the Debtor” section of Exhibit B states that the “Total  amount owed by the debtor” was $3,408.19, but the “To the Garnishee” section of Exhibit B  states that the “Total amount owed by the debtor” was $3,535.69.   31.  Exhibit B is confusing, misleading, and unfair to the unsophisticated consumer.   33.  The “To the clerk of court” section of Exhibit B was signed by Aimee S. Walsh,  an attorney at Defendant Rausch Sturm.   34.  An unsophisticated consumer, reviewing Exhibit B and seeing an attorney  signature on Exhibit B would believe that the attorney had actually reviewed Exhibit B and  would understand that Exhibit B was being mailed because it satisfied all legal requirements and  was consistent with the requirements of Wisconsin law.   35.  Upon information and belief, Attorney Walsh’s review of Plaintiff’s file and  involvement in the collection of Plaintiff’s debt was so superficial that it was effectively non- existent.   36.  If Attorney Walsh had reviewed Plaintiff’s file before Exhibit B was mailed, she  would have realized that the amounts stated in Exhibit B were inconsistent with each other and  that Exhibit B is misleading and potentially unintelligible, and would have corrected the amounts  sought in Exhibit B.   37.  If Attorney Walsh had reviewed Plaintiff’s file before Exhibit B was mailed, she  would have realized that the inconsistent information in Exhibit B was presented “in a manner  that may mislead any other party.”   38.  Plaintiff reviewed Exhibit B.   39.  Plaintiff was misled and confused by Exhibit B.   40.  The unsophisticated consumer would be misled and confused by Exhibit B.   42.  Plaintiff had to take time to obtain and meet with counsel, including traveling to  counsel’s office by car and its related expenses, including but not limited to the cost of gasoline  and mileage, to advise Plaintiff on the consequences of Exhibit B.  The FDCPA   45.  Misrepresentations of the character, amount or legal status of any debt and  misrepresentations as to the proper party to pay, injure or risk injury to interests expressly  protected by Congress in the FDCPA. See Encore Receivable Management, Inc., 18-cv-1484- WED, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134377 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 9. 2019); Richardson v. Diversified  Consultants, No. 17-cv-4047, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118786 *10-11 (N.D. Ill. July 17, 2019)  (“the receipt of a communication misrepresenting the character of the debt (here, the amount  owed) is the kind of injury that Congress sought to prevent through the FDCPA. ‘Such an injury  falls squarely within the ambit of what Congress gave consumers in the FDCPA: ‘a legally  protected interest in certain information about debts,’ with ‘deprivation of information about  one’s debt (in a communication directed to the plaintiff consumer) a cognizable injury.’”  (internal citations omitted); see also Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 2017 WL 1427070, at  *4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 21, 2017); Saenz v. Buckeye Check Cashing of Illinois, 2016 WL 5080747, at  *1-2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2016); Bernal v. NRA Grp., LLC, 318 F.R.D. 64, 72 (N.D. Ill. 2016)  (holding that Plaintiff had standing to challenge misleading communication sent to him because  the communication violated his “right to be free from such misleading communications”). Such  misrepresentations may cause consumers to make incorrect decisions about their finances or  make payments to incorrect parties.   47.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) specifically prohibits “the false representation of— the  character, amount, or legal status of any debt.   48.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(B) specifically prohibits “the false representation of any  services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the  collection of a debt.”   49.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3) specifically prohibits “the false representation or  implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.”   50.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) specifically prohibits the “use of any false representation  or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”   51.  15 U.S.C. § 1692f generally prohibits “unfair or unconscionable means to collect  or attempt to collect any debt.”   52.  15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) specifically prohibits “the collection of any amount  (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such  amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.”  The WCA   53.  The Wisconsin Consumer Act (“WCA”) was enacted to protect consumers against  unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable business practices and to encourage development of fair  and economically sound practices in consumer transactions. Wis. Stat. § 421.102(2).   55.  To further these goals, the Act’s protections must be “liberally construed and  applied.” Wis. Stat. § 421.102(1); see also § 425.301.     56.  “The basic purpose of the remedies set forth in Chapter 425, Stats., is to induce  compliance with the WCA and thereby promote its underlying objectives.”  First Wisconsin  Nat’l Bank v. Nicolaou, 113 Wis. 2d 524, 533, 335 N.W.2d 390 (1983).  Thus, private actions  under the WCA are designed to both benefit consumers whose rights have been violated and also  competitors of the violators, whose competitive advantage should not be diminished because of  their compliance with the law.   57.  To carry out this intent, the WCA provides Wisconsin consumers with an array of  protections and legal remedies. The Act contains significant and sweeping restrictions on the  activities of those attempting to collect debts. See Wis. Stats. § 427.104.     58.  The Act limits the amounts and types of additional fees that may be charged to  consumers in conjunction with transactions. Wis. Stats. § 422.202(1). The Act also provides  injured consumers with causes of action for class-wide statutory and actual damages and  injunctive remedies against defendants on behalf of all customers who suffer similar injuries. See  Wis. Stats. §§ 426.110(1); § 426.110(4)(e). Finally, “a customer may not waive or agree to  forego rights or benefits under [the Act].”  Wis. Stat. § 421.106(1).   59.  Consumers’ WCA claims under Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1) are analyzed using the  same methods as claims under the FDCPA. Indeed, the WCA itself requires that the court  analyze the WCA “in accordance with the policies underlying a federal consumer credit  protection act,” including the FDCPA. Wis. Stat. § 421.102(1).    61.  Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(g) states that a debt collector may not: "Communicate  with the customer or a person related to the customer with such frequency of at such unusual  hours or in such a manner as can reasonably be expected to threaten or harass the customer."   62.  Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(h) states that a debt collector may not: "Engage in other  conduct . . . in such a manner as can reasonably be expected to threaten or harass the customer.”   63.  Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(j) states that a debt collector may not: “Claim, or attempt  or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge or reason to know that the right does not exist.”   64.  Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(k) states that a debt collector may not: “Use a  communication which simulates legal or judicial process or which gives the appearance of being  authorized, issued or approved by a government, governmental agency or attorney-at-law when it  is not.”  65.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein the allegations  contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   66.  Count I is brought against Defendant Rausch Sturm.   67.  Exhibit B states the amount that Defendants are attempting to garnish in a  confusing, misleading, and unfair manner.   69.  Exhibit B misrepresents the degree to which an attorney was involved in  Plaintiff’s file and falsely implies to the unsophisticated consumer that an attorney approved the  amounts stated in Exhibit B as correct.   70.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692(2)(B), 1692e(3),  1692e(10), and 1692f, and 1692f(1).  71.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein the allegations  contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   72.  Count II is brought against both Defendants.   73.  Exhibit B states the amount that Defendants are attempting to garnish in a  confusing, misleading, and unfair manner.   74.  Exhibit B misrepresents to the unsophisticated consumer that it is an effective  earnings garnishment notice even though it is misleading and potentially unintelligible.   75.  Exhibit B misrepresents the degree to which an attorney was involved in  Plaintiff’s file and falsely implies to the unsophisticated consumer that an attorney approved the  amounts stated in Exhibit B as correct.   76.  Defendants violated Wis. Stat. §§ 427.104(1)(g), 427.104(1)(h), 427.104(1)(j),  and 427.104(1)(k).  78.  Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of a Subclass, consisting of:  (a) all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin, (b) who were sent an earnings  garnishment notice in the form of Exhibit B by Defendant Rausch Sturm, (c)  seeking to collect an alleged debt owed to Defendant OneMain, where (c) the  amounts stated in the “Total amount owed by the Debtor” fields of the “To the  Debtor” and the “To the Garnishee” sections were inconsistent with each other,  and (d) the alleged debt was incurred for personal, family, or household purposes,  and (e) the earnings garnishment notice in the form of Exhibit B was mailed  between July 28, 2018 and July 28, 2019, inclusive, and (f) was not returned by  the postal service.   79.  The Class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable.  Upon information and  belief, there are more than 50 members of the Class.   80.  There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the class, which  common questions predominate over any questions that affect only individual class members.   The predominant common question is whether Exhibit B violates the FDCPA and/or WCA.   81.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members.  All are based on  the same factual and legal theories.   82.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class members.   Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in consumer credit and debt collection abuse cases.   83.  A class action is superior to other alternative methods of adjudicating this dispute.   Individual cases are not economically feasible. 