10. 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 Defendant  attempting to collect an obligation owed to or allegedly owed to PayPal, Inc.  (“PayPal”), that contains the alleged violations arising from Defendant's  violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e, et seq.   The Class period begins one year to the filing of this Action.   11. 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;  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  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.  12. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered “1” through “11” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set  forth at length herein.   13. 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.   14. 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 tuition balance allegedly owing  to PayPal.   15. On or around April 7, 2016 Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter. See Exhibit A.   16. 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).   17. The letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2).   18. Said April 7, 2016 Letter provided that the amount due was $273.08.   19. Said Letter also provided: “Logon to www.acibillpay.com to see the repayment options  available to you.”   20. On May 26, 2016, upon following Defendant’s instructions and logging on to Plaintiff’s  account, Plaintiff was indicated the following:   “The account balance may periodically increase due to the addition of accrued interest or  other charges as provided in your agreement with the original creditor or as otherwise  permitted by law.” (See Exhibit A page 3).   21. As set forth in the following Complaint Defendant violated the FDCPA.  First Count  15 U.S.C. §1692e et seq.  False or Misleading Representations as to Status of Debt   22. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered “1” through “21” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set  forth at length herein.   23. Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards Plaintiff violated  various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.    24. 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.    25. Defendant violated §1692e by falsely suggesting that immediate payment of the balance  would benefit Plaintiff financially by stating that the account balance stated above would  be subject to change, and could be subject to interest, late charges or other charges.  As  the account balance Defendant seeks to collect never varies from the date of issuance of  its Collection, and Defendant never makes an adjustment due to the terms of the original  credit agreement after it receives payment in the amount   26. Defendant was attempting to collect on Plaintiff’s purportedly overdue with PayPal.   27. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s account with PayPal was charged-off and is not  subject to change, and will never increase due to any terms of the original agreement.     28. Upon information and belief, the amount due and collected by Defendant will never  change due to interest, late charges or other charges.   29. Defendant’s April 7, 2016 collection letter and the Screenshot of Defendant’s website  taken on May 26, 2016 reflect the exact same balance allegedly due and owing to  Defendant, further evidencing Plaintiff’s allegations.   30. Rather, upon information and belief, Defendant arbitrarily threatened that Plaintiff’s  account may be subject to such fees, in an attempt at pressuring Plaintiff into paying the  account quickly, so as to avoid these non-existent fees.   31. Upon information and belief, Defendant has no legal or contractual right to change the  amount that Plaintiff allegedly owes to the Creditor.   32. In the alternative, Defendant's letter misleadingly suggests that it would be of benefit to  the Plaintiff money-wise if the Plaintiff would accept to make a payment immediately  upon receipt of the letter, due to “interest or other charges” that could very well be added  after the date of the letter. 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).   33. In fact, Defendant had no legal or contractual right to take such actions.   34. As the amount the Defendant is attempting to collect never in fact vary from the date of  issuance, and Defendant never makes adjustments after it receives payment in the amount  of the initial letter, the statement in its letter is false, deceptive and misleading.1   35. 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.   36. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant's conduct  violated Section 1692e et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs  and attorneys’ fees.   1 Reeseg v. General Revenue Corporation, Civ. No. 2: 14-CV-08033-WJM-MF (D.N.J. July 27, 2015) ([Plaintiff] sufficiently  pleads that the collection letter is deceptive under § 1692e(10). Moreover, a debt collector may not threaten "to take any action  that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken." 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5). For the reasons stated above, the least  sophisticated consumer may also reasonably interpret the collection letter as a threat that [Defendant] may increase the amount  owed, notwithstanding the fact that [Defendant] is contractually authorized to collect only the initial balance. . . . Additionally,  the Court rejects [Defendant’s] argument that the collection letter contains the "safe harbor" language described in Miller v.  McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, & Clark, L.L.C., 214 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 2000).); see also Kolganov v. Phillips &  Cohen Associates, 2004 WL 958028 *3 (E.D.N.Y.)  Second Count  Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, et seq  False or Misleading Representations as to the Rights of the Consumer   37. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered “1” through “36” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set  forth at length herein.   38. 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.   39. While § 1692e specifically prohibits certain practices, the list is non-exhaustive, and does  not preclude a claim of falsity or deception based on any non-enumerated practice.   40. Collection letters are deceptive if they can be reasonably read to have two or more  different meanings, one of which is inaccurate.   41.  For purposes of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, the failure to clearly provide the consumer with  complete and accurate information notifying them of their rights and obligations is unfair  and deceptive to the least sophisticated consumer.   42. A collection notice is deceptive when it reasonably can be read to have two or more  different meanings, one of which is inaccurate.2   43. The question of whether a collection letter is deceptive is determined from the  perspective of the “least sophisticated consumer.”   44.  The language in the letter that states “Whenever $600.00 or more in principal of a debt is  discharged as a result of settling a debt for less than the balance owing, the creditor may  2 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.)  be required to report the amount of the debt discharged to the Internal Revenue Service”  is a deceptive and misleading statement in violation of the FDCPA.   45. Here, the balance due and the settlement offer are not greater than the $600.00 IRS  disclosure requirement; therefore, Defendant’s statement regarding tax consequences is  irrelevant and misleading in violation of the FDCPA.   46. Although Defendant had no duty to disclose any potential tax ramifications,3 when  Defendant chooses to give tax disclosures, it must do so in a way that it will not mislead  the least sophisticated consumer as to the tax consequences.   47. Here, because the settlement offer is not greater than $600.00, Defendant’s statement  regarding tax consequences is irrelevant.   48. Therefore, Defendant misrepresented the law by including a clause about an amount of  debt higher than that owed by Plaintiff.   49. The gratuitous reference in Defendant’s letter that its client may contact the IRS  regarding a negotiated resolution to the debt at issue in this letter is a collection ploy  suggesting to the “least sophisticated consumer” that he or she could get in trouble with  the IRS if the debt is settled for less than the full amount.   50. The statement in said letter is false and misleading, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e,  1692e(2), and 1692e(10).   51. Defendant could have taken the steps necessary to bring its actions within compliance of  the FDCPA, but neglected to do so and failed to adequately review its actions to ensure  conformance to the law.  3 See. Altman v. J.C. Christensen & Assocs., 786 F.3d 191, 194, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7980, *7 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2015). "[T]he  FDCPA does not require a debt collector to make any affirmative disclosures of potential tax consequences when collecting a debt.") 