## Facts

- NCB Collection Services collected magazine subscription debts for American Family Publishers using a computerized, high-volume mail system.
- AFP supplied debtor data that NCB loaded into its computer system, which automatically generated and mailed a scheduled series of form collection letters; no employee reviewed any individual debtor’s file unless the debtor responded.
- Christ Clomon received six collection letters regarding an alleged $9.42 debt.
- The first letter came from NCB and was signed by an account supervisor.
- The next five letters were on attorney Philip D. Jackson’s letterhead as “General Counsel” and included a facsimile of his signature, identifying him as “Attorney at Law” and “General Counsel NCB Collection Services.”
- Jackson approved the form letters and general procedures but did not review Clomon’s file or the specific letters sent to Clomon.
- Clomon sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging the letters were false, deceptive, or misleading.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Clomon and awarded $1,000 in statutory damages; Jackson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether mass-produced collection letters using an attorney’s letterhead and facsimile signature, without individualized attorney review, are false, deceptive, or misleading under FDCPA § 1692e.
2. Whether the proper test for deceptiveness under § 1692e is the “least sophisticated consumer” standard.
3. Whether awarding the maximum $1,000 in statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for Clomon.
- The court held that using Jackson’s name, letterhead, and facsimile signature in a way that implied attorney involvement, when none occurred, violated FDCPA § 1692e.
- The court adopted and applied the “least sophisticated consumer” standard to evaluate whether the letters were misleading.
- The court upheld the $1,000 statutory damages award as within the district court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- FDCPA § 1692e prohibits not only literally false statements but also communications whose overall impression is deceptive to the least sophisticated consumer.
- The “least sophisticated consumer” standard protects consumers of limited sophistication while excluding liability for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations.
- A debt-collection letter that appears to come from an attorney can be misleading if it implies the attorney exercised professional judgment or reviewed the debtor’s account when the attorney did not meaningfully participate.
- Use of attorney letterhead or signature without meaningful attorney involvement may violate § 1692e(3) (false implication that a communication is from an attorney) and § 1692e(10) (deceptive means to collect a debt).
- The FDCPA’s bona fide error defense does not excuse a deliberate, systematic practice that predictably creates a misleading impression.
- Statutory damages up to $1,000 may be awarded based on factors including frequency and persistence of noncompliance, the nature of the noncompliance, and whether it was intentional.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that mass-mailed collection letters bearing an attorney’s letterhead and facsimile signature, sent without individualized attorney review, mislead the least sophisticated consumer by implying attorney involvement and therefore violate FDCPA § 1692e; the court also affirmed a $1,000 statutory damages award.


Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993)