Reed V Pinnacle Credit Services Llc 2009
Reed v. Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC,
2009 WL 2461852 (E.D. Pa. 2009)
Where one part of a collection letter said the consumer "will not be sued" over a balance, but another part said the consumer could be forced into arbitration over that balance, the Court agreed the discrepancy is inconsistent and potentially misleading to the consumer. The Court quotes an earlier holding from another Flitter Milz case that "a communication is deceptive for purposes of the FDCPA if it can reasonably be read to have two or more different meanings, one of which is inaccurate."