15 USC § 1692e provides in general terms that "[a] debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation{**76 Misc 3d at 739} or means in connection with the collection of any debt." Whether a debt collector's communication is "false, deceptive, or misleading" under the [*11]FDCPA is determined from the perspective of the "least sophisticated consumer." (See e.g. Huebner v Midland Credit Mgt., Inc., 897 F3d 42, 51 [2d Cir 2018]; Avila v Riexinger & Assoc., LLC, 817 F3d 72, 75 [2d Cir 2016]; Easterling v Collecto, Inc., 692 F3d 229, 233 [2d Cir 2012].) This is an "objective standard, designed to protect all consumers, 'the gullible as well as the shrewd.' " (Huebner v Midland Credit Mgt., Inc. at 51; Easterling v Collecto, Inc., 692 F3d at 234.) "Under this standard, a collection notice can be misleading if it is 'open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate.' " (Avila v Riexinger & Assoc., LLC at 75; Easterling v Collecto, Inc., 692 F3d at 233.)
Specific conduct deemed by Congress to be violative of section 1692e includes "[t]he false representation of . . . the character, amount, or legal status of any debt" (15 USC § 1692e [2] [A]) and "[t]he threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken" (15 USC § 1692e [5]). Accordingly, "communications and practices that could mislead a putative-debtor as to the nature and legal status of the underlying debt, or that could impede a consumer's ability to respond to or dispute collection, violate the FDCPA." (Gabriele v American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc., 503 Fed Appx 89, 94 [2d Cir 2012]; see Sutton v Financial Recovery Servs., Inc., 121 F Supp 3d 309, 313 [ED NY 2015].)