Todd v. Collecto, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state viable claim for relief plaintiff’s action under sections 1692b(2) and 1692f of FDCPA, where plaintiff alleged that defendant telephoned him about alleged debt of his mother, under circumstances where defendant’s representative discussed said debt without asking plaintiff how to reach his mother. Plaintiff lacked standing to sue for violation of section 1692b(2), which prohibits debt collectors from disclosing consumer’s debt to third parties, since said section protects only person whose debt was disclosed. Moreover, while plaintiff could sue defendant under section 1692f, which prohibits debt collectors from using unfair or unconscionable collection practices, instant allegations were insufficient to state viable claim where allegations were too tepid to constitute unfair collection practice, especially where defendant did not request that plaintiff pay instant debt or otherwise threaten plaintiff.