Once a collector knows you have a lawyer, contacting you directly can be an actionable privacy intrusion, though courts in different circuits disagree on single letters.
A consumer who receives a letter from a debt collector in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2), after the collector knows he is represented by counsel, suffers a concrete injury analogous to intrusion upon seclusion and has Article III standing, even if only one letter was sent.
- Case
- Six v. IQ Data International, Inc.
- Citation
- No. 23-15887 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2025), cert. denied, No. 24-1326 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2025)
- Court or agency
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Date
- February 24, 2025
- Precedential
- Yes (published)
- Law
- FDCPA
Summary
A tenant's lawyer told debt buyer IQ Data to send all correspondence to counsel, but IQ mailed a verification letter directly to the tenant the same day it logged the notice. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. The Ninth Circuit reversed, expressly disagreeing with the Seventh Circuit's Pucillo decision, and the Supreme Court declined review.
Background
IQ Data acquired a debt Ryan Six allegedly owed for breaching a residential lease. On August 18, 2021, Six disputed the debt with Equifax and asked for documentation. The same day, his lawyer wrote to IQ Data saying Six was represented and all correspondence should go to counsel.
IQ Data received the dispute on September 2 and queued a verification letter to Six. On September 3, it updated its records to stop direct contact, but the same day it mailed the verification letter to Six’s home. Six sued under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2), which bars a collector from communicating directly with a consumer it knows is represented by an attorney. The District of Arizona dismissed for lack of standing, reasoning that one unwanted letter was not a traditional kind of harm.
What the court held
The panel (Judges Graber, Desai, and de Alba; opinion by Judge Roopali H. Desai) reversed and remanded.
Following TransUnion v. Ramirez, the court considered Congress’s judgment and the closest common-law analog. Congress expressly found that abusive collection practices contribute to “invasions of individual privacy” and banned direct contact with represented consumers. And unwanted communications have long been compared to the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The court saw “no meaningful difference in this context between making a phone call and sending a letter,” citing the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Ward v. NPAS (2023) on a single call.
The court rejected the Seventh Circuit’s contrary reasoning in Pucillo v. National Credit Systems (2023), which held that letters are less intrusive than calls or texts. That line, the Ninth Circuit said, turns on the degree of harm rather than its kind, and under it even “hundreds of unwanted letters” could never count.
The court did not decide the merits. In a footnote, it noted that IQ Data could still raise the bona fide error defense and that the timing, plus the fact that Six had asked for information, “raises serious questions about IQ’s liability.”
The Supreme Court denied IQ Data’s petition for certiorari on October 6, 2025.
Our take
Six deepens a circuit split over whether a single unwanted letter can be a concrete injury. The Fifth Circuit has not squarely decided a § 1692c(a)(2) letter case. Its Perez decision held that one misleading letter sued on under § 1692e did not support standing by analogy to intrusion upon seclusion, but it reasoned that Congress addressed privacy through other parts of the statute. That leaves room to argue that a claim under a privacy-based provision like § 1692c is different.
What it means if you’re sued in Texas
If you have a lawyer, collectors are generally required to deal with the lawyer, not you. Keep every letter, call log, and voicemail you receive after your lawyer’s notice, along with the date the notice was sent. Texas law adds its own protections against abusive collection. A free case review is available if a collector keeps contacting you after you have hired counsel.
Takeaway
If you hire a lawyer, make sure the collector receives written notice. Direct contacts afterward may support a claim, though the collector can still argue bona fide error.
Sources
Primary authority
- Opinion (Ninth Circuit, Feb. 24, 2025)
- Supreme Court docket No. 24-1326 (petition denied Oct. 6, 2025)
Secondary sources
This summary and analysis are general information, not legal advice. Later decisions, amendments or agency actions may change the law; check the current status before relying on it.