“in order to be effective, ‘the notice must not be overshad owed or contradicted by other messages or notices appearing in the initial communication.’ ” Miller, 943 F.2d at 484 (quoting Swanson, 869 F.2d at 1225). This prohibition on “overshadowing” has been found to apply not only to the initial communication (where the initial communication contains the validation notice), see, e.g., id. at 483-85, but also to the debt collector’s activities after the validation notice and through the end of the thirty-day period defined in § 1692g(a), see, e.g., Robinson v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 876 F.Supp. 385, 391 (N.D.N.Y.1995). The case law has not always been specific as to which subsection of § 1692g is the source of this implied “overshadowing” prohibition. See, e.g., Miller, 943 F.2d at 485 (<HOLDING>); Talbott v. GC Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 53
holding that the bona fide error defense in  1692kc does not apply to a violation of the fdcpa resulting from a debt collectors incorrect interpretation of the requirements of that statute and reversing the contrary judgment of the court of appeals 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 holding that debt collectors have no obligation to warn a consumer that her debt may increase over time holding that a debt collectors violation of the overshadowing rule was a circumvention of  1692g