In Jewsevskyj v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., — Fed.Appx. —-2017 WL 2992499 (3rd Cir. July 14, 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected an FDCPA class action that was based on the contention that FDCPA notices were given in too-small of a font.
Here, although the format is compressed and the font is small, our inquiry focuses on whether the notice is free from language or formatting choices that contradicts or overshadows the notice.7 There is no language that contradicts the notice and the recipient’s right to obtain information about the debt. Moreover, because the notice language is in the same font and format as the rest of the letter, there is nothing more prominent than the notice. See Wilson, 225 F.3d at 356 (holding that validation notice “presented in the same font, size and color type-face” as the rest of the letter did not violate § 1692g). Furthermore, the notice is placed on the first page of the letter and is written in plain English. While font size and format could render a notice unreadable, we cannot conclude that the notice here fits in that category as it is concise and legible, and is not misleading, confusing, or overshadowed by anything else in the letter. Cf. Graziano, 950 F.2d at III (concluding that demand on front of letter which contradicted validation notice on reverse side did not effectively communicate rights under § 1692g). Thus, the District Court correctly concluded that the letter does not violate § 1692g.