In Yu v. Design Learned, Inc., 2016 WL 1621704, at *5 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Beeler dismissed an FDCPA claim because the Plaintiff did not plead that the debt was for consumer use.

First, he does not allege that the debt was for personal, family, or household purposes. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). See also Bloom v. I.C. Systems, Inc., 972 F.2d 1067, 1068 (9th Cir. 1992) (the FDCPA “applies to consumer debts and not business loans”). To the contrary, it appears the debt was incurred in connection with a construction site for a dog day care business. The burden is on Mr. Yu to show this is a “personal” debt within the FDCPA. He fails to satisfy this element.