In Denmon v. Kansas Couns., Inc., No. 23-3612, 2025 WL 2329189, at *4 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit looked at debtor’s C&D letter that stated, “I reviewed my credit report and discovered that you are reporting that I owe you $300 for a debt to Rockhill Orthopedic Specialists, Inc. I dispute this debt. Please do not contact me about this debt.” The Court of Appeals stated:
The FCRA does not have a “no contact” provision corresponding to § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA. And rightly so. The obligations of a debt collector who furnished information to a CRA and who receives a notice directly from the consumer disputing the accuracy of the information it furnished — precisely the substance of Denmon’s March 30, 2021 fax to KCI — include conducting an investigation of the disputed information, completing its investigation of the dispute, and reporting the results of the investigation to the consumer before the end of the period within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to report “if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under [§ 1681i(a)(1)]. § 1681s-2(8)(E)(iii). Thus, Denmon’s March 30, 2021 fax imposed on KCI a statutory duty to respond to the fax directly to consumer Denmon. The paradox of imposing conflicting statutory obligations is obvious. As the Supreme Court observed in a case involving different FDCPA issues, “[w]e agree with Heintz that it would be odd if the Act empowered a debt-owing consumer to stop the ‘communications’ inherent in an ordinary lawsuit and thereby cause an ordinary debt-collecting lawsuit to grind to a halt.” Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 296, 115 S.Ct. 1489, 131 L.Ed.2d 395 (1995). This paradox raises the question: why would Denmon add a “do not contact me about this debt” footnote to a letter complaining that KCI furnished false information to a CRA? The no-contact request was almost certain to be “violated” if KCI complied with its FCRA obligations. We do not know the answer because the case was decided in the district court without discovery. The author of the March 30, 2021 fax is unknown but was almost certainly a lawyer. The letter cited no legal authority in making inconsistent legal compliance demands under two consumer protection statutes that sit almost side-by-side in Chapter 41 of Title 15. If a “consumer protection” lawyer drafted this deceptive letter with the intent of trapping KCI in an indefensible FDCPA lawsuit, sanctions might be in order. In any event, we conclude the March 30, 2021 letter is not a valid basis for a § 1692c(c) claim.
