## Facts

- A credit-card company retained attorney John A. Heibl to collect a consumer credit-card debt of about $1,700 from Curtis Bartlett.
- Heibl sent Bartlett a collection letter demanding “quick action” within one week to avoid assumed legal action, offering options to pay $316 or arrange payment with the creditor.
- The same letter also included, beneath Heibl’s signature, an accurate paraphrase of the statutory validation notice informing Bartlett he had 30 days to dispute the debt in writing and request verification and original-creditor information.
- Bartlett received the letter but did not read it; he nonetheless sued, alleging the letter’s presentation of the validation notice was confusing and unlawfully overshadowed his statutory rights.
- After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Heibl, finding the letter not confusing; Bartlett appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a collection letter violates FDCPA § 1692g when it includes an accurate 30-day validation notice but also demands action within one week and implies imminent legal action, making the notice confusing to an unsophisticated consumer.
2. Whether such language impermissibly overshadows or contradicts the consumer’s 30-day dispute-and-verification rights under § 1692g.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held the letter violated the FDCPA because the one-week demand and implied threat of legal action conflicted with the 30-day validation period and would confuse an unsophisticated consumer.
- The case was returned for further proceedings consistent with the finding of liability under the FDCPA.

## Legal Principles

- FDCPA § 1692g requires not only inclusion of the validation notice, but presentation that is not overshadowed or contradicted by other collection demands.
- Under the “unsophisticated consumer” standard, a letter is unlawful if its overall message would mislead a typical, uninformed consumer, even if the statutory notice is technically accurate.
- Conflicting deadlines (e.g., a demand to act within one week alongside a 30-day dispute right) can create impermissible confusion that defeats the purpose of § 1692g.
- A debt collector may seek prompt payment, but must clearly communicate that exercising the 30-day dispute right prevents continued collection activity until verification is provided.

## Conclusion

The court found that a collection letter’s urgent one-week demand and implied legal threat rendered the statutory 30-day validation notice confusing, so the letter violated FDCPA § 1692g despite accurately stating the notice’s content.


Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1997)