In Campbell v. American Recovery Services Incorporated, 2016 WL 3219866, at *3 (C.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Wright dismissed an FDCPA grounded in the contention that a collection letter failed to adequately identify the creditor.
Section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA provides that within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall send the consumer a written notice describing the debt, to whom it is owed, and a statement that the consumer has a right to dispute the debt. Here, ARSI’s letter to Plaintiff states “Creditor: American Express.” (Compl. Ex. 1.) Plaintiff argues that his understanding of the letter is irrelevant. (Opp. 5–6.) Rather, he states that the least sophisticated consumer standard is an objective standard that pays no attention to the subjective circumstances of the particular debtor in question. (Id.) ARSI contends that its letter would not confuse even the least sophisticated debtor. (Reply 6.) The Seventh Circuit recently stated: “Undoubtedly, there will be occasions when a district court will be required to hold that no reasonable person, however, unsophisticated, could construe the wording of the communication in a manner that will violate the statutory provision. In most instances, however, a proper application of the rule will require that the plaintiff be given an opportunity to demonstrate that his allegations are supported by a factual basis responsive to the statutory standard.” McMillan v. Collection Prof’ls Inc., 455 F.3d 754, 2006 WL 1867483 at *2 (7th Cir. July 7, 2006). Here, Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Under the FDCPA it is sufficient to avoid confusion if the debt collector uses the full business name of the creditor, the name under which it usually transacts business, or a commonly-used acronym. See Berk v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 4467746, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 2011) (holding that no person could find that “Chase Auto Loans” is a false identification of any of the named Chase defendants—JPMorgan Chase Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co., or Chase Auto Finance Corporation); see also Blarek v. Encore Receivable Mgmt., Inc., No. 06-C-0420, 2007 WL 984096, at *7 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that any legitimate name under which the creditor operates could qualify as naming the creditor as required in § 1692g(a)(2)). Because “American Express” is the name under which the financial services company usually transacts business, is commonly referred to by that name, and is not potentially misleading, the Court GRANTS ARSI’s Motion with respect to Plaintiff’s section 1692g claim.