Courtney Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding disclosure of debtor's account number through clear plastic envelope window violated FDCPA because information “could be used to expose [the debtor's] financial predicament”
• reiterating that the FDCPA “must be broadly construed in order to give full effect to [Congress’s remedial] purposes”
• noting that a plaintiff, among other things, must establish “the defendant has violated a provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect [a] debt” “[t]o prevail on an FDCPA claim”
• distinguishing cases where markings were found to fall within the benign exception because they “did not confront an envelope that displayed core information relating to the debt collection and susceptible to privacy intrusions”
• noting proscription of marking indicating contents of the letter pertain to debt collection
• distinguishing other out-of-district cases where courts permitted an exception for seemingly benign markings because “they did so in the context of envelope markings that did not have the potential to cause invasions of privacy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).