In adopting this statute, Congress was concerned about the harmful effect of abusive debt practices on consumers. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) ('Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.'). This harm does not occur until receipt of the collection notice.
At least one court has indicated that a plaintiffs cause of action might not accrue until receipt of the collection notice for purposes of the Act's one-year statute of limitations, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) (1988). See Seabrook v. Onondaga Bureau of Medical Economics Inc., 705 F. Supp. 81, 83 (N.D.N.Y. 1989) ('more likely' that statute would start to run only 'on the date the debtor received the communication'). But see Mattson v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 967 F.2d 259, 261 (8th Cir. 1992) (statute starts to run on date of mailing); Drumright v. Collection Recovery, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 1 (M.D. Tenn. 1980) (statute starts to run on date of mailing for some violations).