Dist.Ct. did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-debtor's action under Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, alleging that defendant sent dunning letter that was misleading. While plaintiff alleged that sentence in dunning letter, i.e., "This letter serves as notification that your delinquent account may be reported to credit bureaus," was misleading because her debt had already been reported to credit bureaus by time she had received dunning letter, said sentence was not deceptive because it simply apprised her that defendant has/had permission to report her delinquent debt at any time. Moreover, defendant's explanation in letter that payment of settlement amount by certain date would stop collection activity was not promise that if offered settlement was paid then delinquent debt would not be reported. As such, plaintiff was required to produce evidence of letter's confusion with respect to "significant fraction" of population, and plaintiff failed to do so through use of objective measure such as consumer survey. Moreover, record lacked evidence of how unsophisticated (as opposed to least sophisticated) consumer would actually read defendant's dunning letter, and plaintiff's own testimony regarding her alleged confusion was not enough to support her claim.
