QASEM v. ACCOUNT SERVICES COLLECTIONS INC (2024)

Affirmed. See Cornette v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 280 F. Supp. 3d 1362, 1369–70 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (“Nowhere in the FDCPA does the statute specifically require a debt collector to validate a debt prior to seeking collection of such debt. In fact, § 1692g(a)(3) specifically allows a debt collector to assume a debt to be valid if not disputed by the consumer within thirty days of receiving such notice. A reading of the FDCPA that requires pre-collection investigation would therefore render § 1692g(a)(3) superfluous, especially as applied to the first communication between a debt collector and consumer.”); see also Stanley v. Kan. Couns. of Kan. City, 639 F. App'x 589, 591 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Other than Stanley's own conclusory and self-serving allegations that she did not owe the amount that Kansas Counselors was attempting to collect, there is no evidence that Kansas Counselors used any false, deceptive, or misleading representation about the amount of the debt, threatened to take illegal action, or attempted to collect any amount that was not authorized.”).

PER CURIAM.