17.  Sometime in 2019 Plaintiff incurred a liability to Progressive Insurance related to  an unpaid automobile insurance premium.   18.  On or about January 27, 2021 Swiecicki received a dunning notice from Caine, as  Caine & Weiner, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. (the “Letter Notice”)   19.  Exhibit 1 does state that Caine is a debt collector. See Exhibit 1 at p. 1  2 Id.   20.  Exhibit 1 does not disclose to Swiecicki that he has a right to dispute the validity  of this debt. Id. at p. 2   21.  Exhibit 1 demands Swiecicki pay an amount certain to settle the debt within thirty  (30) days of the letter or else the offer is hereby unilaterally revoked. Id. at p. 1   22.  In addition to receiving Exhibit 1 on January 27, 2021, Swiecicki received a  dunning notice via email from “Yanalte Jovel”, an employee of Caine on January 28, 2021. See  Exhibit 2. (the “Email Notice”)   23.  Exhibit 2 notified Caine of the settlement offer made in Exhibit 1. Id. at p. 2   24.  Exhibit 2 contained a PDF attachment of Exhibit 1. Id.   25.  Exhibit 2, like Exhibit 1, does not disclose to Swiecicki that he has a right to dispute  the validity of this debt. Id.   26.  In reviewing Exhibit 2 after Ms. Jovel’s signature block, Swiecicki noticed at the  very end of the email a “Contact Us” portion which included hyperlinks to Caine’s website and a  portion titled “Disclosures”. Id. at p. 3   27.  At no time since receiving Exhibit 2 did Swiecicki click on the “disclosures” tab as  neither Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 2 make any explicit reference to Swiecicki that if he did click on the  tab, he’d be advised on his rights under the FDCPA to challenge the validity of the debt.  IV.  28.  The Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated herein.   29.  Based on the allegations herein both the Letter Notice and the Email Notice are for  debts as defined by the FDCPA.   30.  Based on the allegations herein both the Letter Notice and the Email Notice fail to  provide Swiecicki and the putative class members with the full “mini Miranda” notice as required  by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.     31.  More specifically the Letter Notice fails to specifically inform Swiecicki and the  putative class members with any information related to their rights under the FDCPA to challenge  the validity of the debt. See Exhibit 1.   32.  More specifically the Email Notice both (1) fails to specifically inform Swiecicki  and the putative class members with any information related to their rights under the FDCPA to  challenge the validity of the debt and (2) overshadows the “disclosures” which prevents Swiecicki  and the putative class members from knowing they could click a hyperlink to obtain the required  disclosures. See Exhibit 2 at pp. 2-3  V.  40.  Class Definition. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on  behalf of a national class of similarly situated individuals and entities (the “Class”) defined as  follows:  All consumers to whom Caine has sent any written communications  either via letter or electronic means between ONE YEAR FROM  FILING OF COMPLAINT to the present to collect a debt with  regard to a loan or account subject the Fair Debt Collection Practices  Act (“FDCPA”) which fails to include the required mini-Miranda  disclosures allowing consumers to dispute the validity of a debt.  Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents,  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in  which Defendants or its parents have a controlling interest, and  those entities’ current and former employees, officers, and directors;  (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s  immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a timely  request for exclusion from the Class; (4) any persons who have had  their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise  released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors and assigns of  any such excluded person.   41.  Subclass Definition: Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,  on behalf of a Subclass of similarly situated individuals (the “Subclass”) defined as follows:  All consumers to whom Caine has sent electronic communications  between ONE YEAR FROM FILING OF COMPLAINT to the  present to collect a debt with regard to a loan or account subject the  Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) which includes the  “Disclosure” hyperlink at the end of the electronic communication  to the consumer.  Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents,  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in  which Defendants or its parents have a controlling interest, and  those entities’ current and former employees, officers, and directors;  (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s  immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a timely  request for exclusion from the Class; (4) any persons who have had  their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise  released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors and assigns of  any such excluded person.   42.  Numerosity: Upon information and belief, the Class and Subclass are each  comprised of hundreds of Class members. Thus, the Class and Subclasses are so numerous that  joinder of all members is impracticable. Class members can easily be identified through  Defendant’s records.     43.  Commonality and Predominance: There are several questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff, the Class and the Subclass, which predominate over any  individual issues, including:  a.  Whether the Plaintiff, Class and Subclass members are a “consumer” as that term  is defined by the FDCPA;  b.  Whether the debt Caine was seeking to collect from the Plaintiff, Class and/or  Subclass member is a “debt” as that term is defined by the FDCPA;  c.  Whether Caine is a debt collector as that term is defined by the FDCPA;   d.  Whether Exhibit 1 contains the required mini-Miranda language related to a  consumer’s right to dispute a debt as required by the FDCPA;   e.  Whether Caine sent substantially similar letters to Exhibit 1 to Class and Subclass  Members;   f.  Whether Exhibit 2 contains the required mini-Miranda language related to a  consumer’s right to dispute a debt as required by the FDCPA;   g.  Whether the use of the “Disclosure” hyperlink in Exhibit 2 complies with a  consumer’s right to dispute a debt as required by the FDCPA.  h.  Whether Caine sent substantially similar emails to Exhibit 2 to Class and Subclass  Members;   i.  What, if any, actual payments were made by the Plaintiff, Class and Subclass  Members to Caine after receiving collection notices like Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2;   j.  What, if any, disputes were sent to Caine by the Plaintiff, Class and Subclass  Members to Caine after receiving collection notices like Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2;   k.  Whether any Class and/or Subclass Member clicked on the “Disclosure” hyperlink  after receiving collection notices like Exhibit 2;  l.  Whether Caine is liable for statutory damages under the FDCPA to the Plaintiff,  Class and Subclass Members as a result of Caine’s violations of the FDCPA; and  m.  Whether the Plaintiff, Class and/or Subclass members incurred any actual damages  in the form of emotional distress as a result of Caine’s violations of the FDCPA.   44.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of members of the Class and  the Subclass. All claims are based on the same legal and factual issues. The Plaintiff and each of  the Class and Subclass Members are subject to Caine’s illegal collection attempted by receiving  Exhibit 1 and/or Exhibit 2. Caine’s conduct was uniform to the Plaintiff, Class and/or Subclass  members.   45.  Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class and Subclass. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and  experienced in complex class actions. The Plaintiff does not have an interest antagonistic to the  members of the Class and.or Subclass. Caine has no defenses unique to the Plaintiff. The questions  of law and fact outlined in Paragraph 43 are common to the Proposed Class and Subclass and  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class and Subclass   46.  Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this controversy. The expense and burden of individual litigation would  make it impractical or impossible for proposed members of the Class and Subclass to prosecute  their claims individually. The trial and the litigation of the claims of the Plaintiff, Class and  Subclass are manageable.   47.  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), this matter is properly maintainable as a class  action.  48.  Swiecicki incorporates all of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs  as if fully stated herein.   49.  Swiecicki and each of the members of the Class and Subclass are a consumer under  the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).   50.  Swiecicki’s account as well as the accounts of each of the members of the Class  and Subclass are a debt under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).   51.  Caine is a debt collector under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692a6).   52.  Caine’s actions and practices described as demonstrated by both Exhibits 1 and 2  as well as the allegations contained in Paragraphs 28 through 32 constitute violate the FDCPA in  at least the following respects:  a) false, deceptive or misleading representations or means in connection with the  collection of a debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e;   b)  unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt, in violation  of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f;  c) attempting to collect an amount not expressly authorized by the agreement creating  the debt or permitted by law, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1);  d) falsely representing the character, amount and/or legal status of the debt, in  violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2).   53.  As a result of Caine’s failure to comply with the provisions of the FDCPA, and the  resulting injury and harm Caine’s failure caused, Swiecicki and members of the Class and Subclass  are each entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs under 15  U.S.C. § 1692k.  CLASS   Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act  15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq.  (On behalf of Plaintiff, the Class and the Subclass)  