Laubach v. Arrow Service Bureau, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that printing and mailing of collection letters on behalf of debt collector did not render mailing company debt collector for FDCPA purposes
• holding that printing and mailing of collection letters on behalf of debt collector did not render mailing company debt collector for FDCPA purposes
• holding that the defendant was not operating as the debt collector, and basing this holding in part on the fact that the defendant’s name and address were not included in the collection letter
• holding that providing follow-up services may render an entity a debt collector
• noting that the conjunction “and” indicates that all three are required as elements of a § 1692j offense
• “Lason’s activities included, among other things, storing [debt collection agency Arrow’s] debt collection letters on computers, merging the letters with Arrow’s mailing lists, printing the letters, and mailing them to the debtors”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).