District Court for the District of Connecticut held, inter alia, that the defendant did not violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692g by failing to provide the requisite information because the plaintiff initiated the communication. The court elaborated at length on this issue, writing: Courts in this circuit have held that the “FDCPA’s protections are not triggered by communications initiated by someone other than the debt collector.” Boyd v. J.E. Robert Co., No. 05-CV-2455(KAM)(RER), 2010 WL 5772892, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010) (FDCPA did not apply where defendants wére simply responding to inquiries made by plaintiffs concerning the outstanding amount then due and owing on plaintiff’s account) ... Nichols v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. 07-cv3216, 2007 WL 4198252, at *4-5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2007) (<HOLDING>). To permit a consumer to unilaterally trigger
holding that reporting a consumers debt to a creditreporting agency constitutes collection of the debt under  1692gb holding that fdcpa was intended to protect consumers from communications initiated by debt collectors not consumers holding that debt collectors have no obligation to warn a consumer that her debt may increase over time holding that the name under which a debt collector is licensed to do business is the debt collectors true name for purposes of the fdcpa holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred  is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt