On August 12, a federal judge in a Georgia district court denied a debt collector’s motion to dismiss an FDCPA lawsuit, holding that the consumer was not required to submit a dispute in writing to allege a violation of Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA. The plaintiff alleged that despite the debt collector’s verbal acknowledgement of the dispute, the collector failed to mark the plaintiff’s account as “disputed,” and thus falsely reported the status of the debt in violation of the FDCPA.

The defendant argued that only written disputes could trigger liability under the FDCPA, but the court rejected this position. The order noted that Section 1692e(8) applies whenever a debt collector “knows or should know” a debt is disputed, regardless of whether the notice is oral or written. The court further noted that Congress intentionally included a writing requirement in certain FDCPA sections but omitted it from Section 1692e. Based on this reasoning, the court denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff’s claims under sections 1692e(5), 1692e(8) and 1692e(10) to proceed.