13. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered “1” through “12” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set  forth at length herein.   14. Some time prior to August 16, 2014, an obligation was allegedly incurred to First Premier  Bank. (“FPB”)   15. The FPB obligation arose out of a transaction in which money, property, insurance or  services, which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family or  household purposes.   16. The alleged FPB obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a(5).   17. FPB is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a(4).   18. Defendant contends that the FPB debt is past due.   19. 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.   20. FPB directly or through an intermediary contracted the Defendant to collect the alleged  debt.   21. On or about August 16, 2014, the Defendant caused to be delivered to the Plaintiff a letter  in an attempt to collect the alleged FPB debt. See Exhibit A.   23. The August 16, 2014 letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2).   24. The August 16, 2014 letter was sent in an envelope that contained a glassine window.   25. Visible through the glassine window above the Plaintiff’s address was the Plaintiff’s  account number with the Defendant.    26. The account number constitutes personal identifying information.   27. The account number is not meaningless – it is a piece of information capable of  identifying [the consumer] as a debtor, and its disclosure has the potential to cause harm  to a consumer that the FDCPA was enacted to address. Douglass v. Convergent  Outsourcing, 765 F. 3d 299 (Third Cir. 2014).   28. Defendant’s actions as described herein are part of a pattern and practice used to collect  consumer debts.   29. 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.   30. On information and belief, Defendant sent a written communication, in the form annexed  hereto as Exhibit A to at least 50 natural persons in the State of New Jersey within one  year of the date of this Complaint.  32. Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff  violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. §  1692f.   33. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692f(8), a debt collector is prohibited from using any language  or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating  with the consumer by use of mails.   34. The Defendant violated said section by putting the Plaintiff’s account number visible on  theAugust 16, 2014 letter.   35. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant's conduct  violated Section 1692f et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs  and attorneys’ fees.  VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT  15 U.S.C. §1692f et seq.  