In Williams v. Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC, No. 5:25-CV-505-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2026), Judge Terrence W. Boyle entered a default judgment against a debt collector that apparently had difficulty understanding the phrase “I refuse to pay.”
The consumer received collection texts concerning two separate accounts. Regarding one account, she responded:
“I refuse to pay any debt associated with any and all accounts in your office!”
Atlantic Recovery nevertheless sent two more collection texts. On the second account, she similarly responded that she did not know who the collector was and “I refuse to pay this debt!” Again, another collection message followed.
That matters because 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c) generally prohibits a debt collector from continuing to communicate about a debt after the consumer notifies the collector in writing that she refuses to pay or wants communications to cease. Judge Boyle held that the text messages constituted written refusals and that the subsequent communications adequately alleged FDCPA violations.
The collector also neglected the FDCPA's required “mini-Miranda” disclosure under § 1692e(11)—the warning that the communication is an attempt to collect a debt and that information obtained will be used for that purpose. The offending communications lacked the required disclosures.
Damages: $1,000 Yes; Emotional Distress No
The decision is also useful on damages. The plaintiff described anger, disbelief, and even an immediate tightening in her chest when the collector continued contacting her. But Judge Boyle declined to award actual emotional-distress damages, noting that courts have been reluctant to do so without mental-health treatment or evidence that the distress concretely affected the consumer's personal or professional life.
That did not, however, prevent recovery of statutory damages. Actual damages are unnecessary for an FDCPA statutory award, and the court awarded the maximum $1,000, emphasizing the persistent and intentional nature of the violations. Particularly unhelpful for Atlantic Recovery was that the consumer alleged it sent two additional texts and two voicemails even after she filed the lawsuit.
With $513 in allowable filing, copying, and service costs, judgment totaled $1,513.
Commentary
Williams is a useful reminder for both consumers and their attorneys that “I refuse to pay” can be more than an expression of frustration—it can invoke a specific federal statutory protection. And a text message provides something telephone calls often do not: a readily preserved written record showing exactly what the consumer told the collector and exactly what the collector did afterward.
The case also demonstrates the unfortunate economics of FDCPA litigation. Even repeated violations produced only $1,000 in statutory damages, and understandable anger and physical stress were insufficient for actual damages. Here, because the plaintiff proceeded without counsel, there was no attorney-fee award either; the court specifically rejected compensating her for her own time litigating the case.
Still, the message for collectors could hardly be simpler. When a consumer puts in writing:
“I refuse to pay.”
The appropriate response generally isn't another collection text.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments