11.  On or about January 4, 2019, ARS mailed a collection letter to Plaintiff regarding  an alleged debt owed to “VELOCITY INVESTMENT LLC,” with an “Original Creditor” listed  as “PROSPER FUNDING LLC.” A copy of the letter is attached to this complaint as Exhibit A.   12.  Upon information and belief, the alleged debt referenced by Exhibit A was the  result of a short-term, unsecured consumer loan, the proceeds of which were used only for  personal, family, and household purposes.   13.  Upon information and belief, Exhibit A is a form letter, generated by computer,  and with the information specific to Plaintiff inserted by computer.   15.  Upon information and belief, Exhibit A is the first written communication ARS  mailed to Plaintiff regarding the alleged debt referenced in Exhibit A.   16.  Exhibit A includes the following representation which largely reflects the  statutory validation notice that the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, requires the debt collector mail  the alleged debtor along with, or within five days of, the initial communication:   17.  Exhibit A also includes the following statements:   18.  On the face of Exhibit A, the unsophisticated consumer would understand such  language to be a threat that litigation would be commenced immediately if ARS and/or velocity  did not receive payment as demanded by the letter.   19.  Exhibit A repeatedly emphasizes the immediacy of the threat of litigation by  stating that the creditor of Plaintiff’s alleged debt is actively preparing to refer his account to an  attorney “[a]t this time,” and that the “establish[ment] of a satisfactory resolution” of his account  is the only means by which to avoid the referral of his account to a law firm “at this time.”   20.   Exhibit A further conveys the immanency of legal action by referencing a  specific law firm, “GURSTEL STALOCH & CHARGO P.A.”   22.  Upon information and belief, ARS and/or the creditor of Plaintiff’s alleged debt  had no definite intentions to refer Plaintiffs account to “GURSTEL STALOCH & CHARGO  P.A.” or any other attorney at any point as of the date of Exhibit A.   23.  As of December 27, 2019, no legal action has been brought against Plaintiff with  respect to his alleged debt owed to “VELOCITY INVESTMENT LLC.”   24.  Upon information and belief, the sole purpose of including the above referenced  language in Exhibit A is to impart upon the unsophisticated consumer a sense of urgency based  on false pretenses and to discourage the consumer for exercising their rights to dispute and  request verification of their alleged debts.   25.  Although Exhibit A includes the validation notice required under 15 U.S.C.   § 1692g, the letter does not explain how Plaintiff’s rights to dispute and request verification of  the alleged debt “fit together” with the letter’s threat to refer the debt to “GURSTEL, STALOCH  & CHARGO, or an associated law firm in your state.”  See, e.g., Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497  (7th Cir. 1997).    26.  Exhibit A overshadows the validation notice.   27.  Plaintiff was confused and misled by Exhibit A.   28.  The unsophisticated consumer would be confused and misled by Exhibit A.  The FDCPA   30.  Moreover, Congress has explicitly described the FDCPA as regulating “abusive  practices” in debt collection. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692(a) – 1692(e). Any person who receives a debt  collection letter containing a violation of the FDCPA is a victim of abusive practices. See 15  U.S.C. §§ 1692(e) (“It is the purpose of this subchapter to eliminate abusive debt collection  practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive  debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State  action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses”).   32.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e generally prohibits “any false, deceptive, or misleading  representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”   33.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) specifically prohibits the “threat to take any action that  cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.”   34.  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.”   35.  15 U.S.C. § 1692f generally prohibits “unfair or unconscionable means to collect  or attempt to collect any debt.”   37.  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).   39.  To further these goals, the Act’s protections must be “liberally construed and  applied.” Wis. Stat. § 421.102(1); see also § 425.301.   40.  “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.   41.  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.   42.  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).   44.  Further, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that WCA claims relating to debt  collection are to be analyzed under the “unsophisticated consumer” standard. Brunton v. Nuvell  Credit Corp., 785 N.W.2d 302, 314-15. In Brunton, the Wisconsin Supreme Court explicitly  adopted and followed the “unsophisticated consumer” standard, citing and discussing Gammon  v. GC Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 27 F.3d 1254, 1257 (7th Cir. 1994). Id.   45.  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."   46.  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.”   47.  The Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, which is tasked with  regulating licensed collection agencies, has found that "conduct which violates the Federal Fair  Debt Collection Practices Act" can reasonably be expected to threaten or harass the customer.   See Wis. Admin. Code DFI-Bkg 74.16(9) ("Oppressive and deceptive practices prohibited.").    48.  Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(L) states that a debt collector may not: “Threaten action  against the customer unless like action is taken in regular course or is intended with respect to  the particular debt.”  49.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein the allegations  contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   51.  ARS and/or the creditor of Plaintiff’s alleged debt had no definite intentions to  refer Plaintiffs account to “GURSTEL STALOCH & CHARGO P.A.” or any other attorney at  any point as of the date of Exhibit A.    52.  By stating: “If you contact our office and establish a satisfactory resolution your  creditor will not refer your account to GURSTEL STALOCH & CHARGO P.A., or an  associated law firm in your state, for review at this time,” Exhibit A overshadows the validation  notice.   53.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692g(b).  54.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein the allegations  contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   55.  By stating: “If you contact our office and establish a satisfactory resolution your  creditor will not refer your account to GURSTE STALOCH & CHARGO P.A., or an associated  law firm in your state, for review at this time,” Exhibit A threatens action against Plaintiff which  ARS and/or the creditor of Plaintiff’s alleged debt do not intend to take with respect to Plaintiff’s  alleged debt.   56.  Exhibit A violates the FDCPA.   57.  ARS is licensed as a “Collection Agency” pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 218.04 and  Wis. Admin. Code Ch. DFI-Bkg 74.   58.  Defendant violated Wis. Stat. §§ 427.104(g), 427.104(h), and 427.104(L).  60.  The Class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. On information and belief,  there are more than 50 members of the Class.   61.  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 the Defendants complied with 15 U.S.C. § 1692e,  1692e(10), and 1692g.   62.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members.  All are based on  the same factual and legal theories.   63.  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.   64.  A class action is superior to other alternative methods of adjudicating this dispute.    Individual cases are not economically feasible. 