Some Relief in the District of New Jersey: Court Stays 1692g Case Pending Third Circuit Decision

The written dispute requirement issue and whether a validation notice that tracks the language of section 1692g is somehow violative of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is a hot button—and divisive—issue within the Third Circuit.


In New Jersey, some decisions are stating that a letter containing the validation notice is fine as written, specifically when the invitation for the consumer to call the debt collector does not indicate that the call can be related to a dispute. Other judges in New Jersey are taking issue with including the word “if” in the validation notice—which, we might add, is the word used in the FDCPA itself. Judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are finding that the sentence stating “unless you notify this office within 30 days that you dispute the validity of this debt,” without stating that the consumer must dispute in writing, does not accurately reflect the Third Circuit’s requirement that all disputes must be in writing.

View this content by subscribing

Please register to unlock this content

I already have an account. Log in