Sending verification in response to a consumer’s written demand for verification under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, which also contains a cease and desist demand, does not violate § 1692c under a holding from the Western District of New York in Marino v. HoganWillig, PLLC, 11-cv-453 (W.D. NY April 24, 2012).
The Court refused to read § 1692c(c) to prohibit sending a consumer § 1692g(b) validation because it would place a debt collector
“into a frozen state where it could not seek to collect the debt because compliance with Section 1692g(b) would violate Section 1692c(c).”
The court cited the unpublished opinion in Recker v. Cent. Collection Bureau, Inc., No. 1:04-CV-2037-WTL-DFH, 2005 WL 2654222, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2005), which reasoned that “verification activities could be communications allowed implicitly under exception 1692c(c)(3).”