Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for lack of Article III standing plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim, alleging that defendant violated 15 USC section 1692g(a)(3) by sendig debt-collection letter that told plaintiff that if she not dispute debt in writing within 30 days, defendant would assume that debt was valid. While plaintiff asserted that she was confused by letter, she failed to allege any concrete injury such as contending that letter’s alleged lack of clarity led her to take any additional step such as paying money she did not owe. Moreover, plaintiff’s contention that debt collector violated FDCPA by telling her to communicate in writing was insufficient to establish any actual injury, where plaintiff failed to explain how writing requirement deterred her from disputing debt, or how disputing her debt would have done her any good. As such, plaintiff was no worse off than if instant letter had told her that she could dispute debt orally.