In GUERRERO v RJM the district court judge said this:
The appeals court mostly disagreed (one dissenter) but skirted the issue as to why congress would want CA's to write that the CA's would send validation and why congress really didn't intend that CA's actually had to send it.The Court notes that even if Defendant had ceased with its efforts to collect the alleged debt, Defendant still would have been obligated to verify the debt.
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4), a debt collector must inform a consumer that if the consumer timely notifies the debt collector in writing that the debt is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt and that such verification will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.
The statute could not have required such a statement without intending that a debt collector be required to follow through with the promise to obtain and send verification.
I think that congress really intended for the CA's to identify the consumer with the debt. If the first CA is allowed to simply cease collections without verifying, each successive CA can do the same thing. Each successive CA could write dunning letters without anyone knowing if the debt is legit. Years later CA's could be comming out of the nowhere and asking for payment on a debt which has never been verified.
What was congress' intention?

