information. Moreover, the sentence was neither contradicted by a separate statement that plaintiffs could not request the name and address of the original creditor, nor placed on the back of the validation notice, nor printed in smaller, less visible type. See Nat’l Fin. Servs., Inc., 98 F.3d at 139 (“The notice also must not be overshadowed or contradicted by other messages.”); see also Miller v. Pay-co-Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 943 F.2d 482, 483-85 (4th Cir.1991). Put simply, the least sophisticated consumer reading Mancini’s letters would plainly understand that he is entitled to request the name and address of the original creditor from Mancini, and hence the June 2 and June 16 letters are not deficient in this regard because the information was effectively conveyed. See id. at 484 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because the statements made in
holding that a debt collector need not cease its collection efforts in order to abide by the statute it simply needs to convey effectively the validation notice without contradicting it holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt holding that the notice requirement applies only to the first debt collector that communicates with the consumer holding that the validation notice is overshadowed where a debt collector serves a consumer with process initiating a lawsuit during the validation period without clarifying that commencement of the lawsuit has no effect on the information conveyed in the validation notice holding that if congress had intended to obligate every subsequent debt collector beyond the first to provide validation notice it would have explicitly called for it in 15 usc section 1692g