The following excerpt is from Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2017):
Importantly, notice of the debtor's right to dispute the debt and to request the name of the original creditor must not be overshadowed or inconsistent with other messages appearing in the communication.7 15 U.S.C. 1692g(b). Overshadowing or inconsistency may exist where language in the notice would "confuse a least sophisticated debtor" as to her validation rights. Terran v. Kaplan , 109 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1997). In other words, "[u]nder the law of this circuit, whether the initial communication violates the FDCPA depends on whether it is likely to deceive or mislead a hypothetical least sophisticated debtor. " Id. at 1431 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.