In Monahan v. NRA Group, LLC (D.Conn. 2011), here, Judge Hall held that debt collection, after all, by its nature inflicts some inconvenience and embarrassment and the FDCPA was not designed to eliminate all of it. 



The district court held that section 1692d is meant to protect debtors from oppressive and outrageous conduct, but not from every negative consequence of debt collection.  See Bieber v. Assoc. Collection Servs., Inc. 631 F.Supp. 1140, 1417 (D. Kan. 1986) (“Some inconvenience or embarrassment to the debtor is a natural consequence of debt collection”).  Courts have interpreted section 1692d(2) to prohibit profanity and obscenity, as well as offensive language that is akin to profanity or obscenity.  See Jeter, 760 F.2d at 1178 (“Such offensive language might encompass name-calling, racial or ethnic slurs, or other derogatory remarks.”).  . . ¶  Monahan asserts that NRA violated section 1692d with statements such as “activity is going to keep on coming, that’s what we do;”  “[we will] just call and call until she can pick up;” and “further collections will continue.” []  Monahan admits that no NRA representative used profanity, called her names, or screamed at her. []  Even employing the least sophisticated consumer standard, and taken in the light most favorable to Monahan, these statements are not akin to obscenity or profanity.  Accordingly, Monahan fails to raise a material fact to support her claim that NRA’s statements went so far as to violate section 1692d(2).