On October 6, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging that a debt collector’s use of a third-party mail vendor to send a collection letter violated the FDCPA. The plaintiff argued that transmitting account information to a mail vendor constituted an impermissible third-party communication under the FDCPA that was abusive, deceptive or unfair.

The appellate court found that the FDCPA did not cover the conduct at issue, explaining that sending information to a mail vendor was “an internal step to facilitate mailing the collection letter” and not the type of third-party communication the statute prohibits. The court emphasized that the FDCPA’s “clear wording” does not apply to every communication with a third party, and that only communications whose “primary purpose is to induce payment” fall within the statute’s third-party disclosure restrictions. Finding the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to establish a violation of the FDCPA, the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim.