information, it violates the [FDCPA].” Hecht v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Civil No. 3:12cv498(JBA), 2013 WL 164514, at *2 (D.Conn. Jan. 15, 2013). Also, of relevance in the instant case, § 1692g(e) states that “the failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.” The Second Circuit has provided the following guidance for analyzing alleged violations of § 1692(g): “When determining whether § 1692g has been violated, an objective standard, measured by how the ‘least sophisticated consumer’ would interpret the notice received from the debt collector, is applied.” Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, 34 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Clomon [v. Jackson ], 988 F.2d [1314, 1318 (2d Cir.1993)] (<HOLDING>)). “When a notice contains language that
holding that while a trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a term of probation has been violated findings of fact must rest on competent substantial evidence recognizing the circuit split and applying the subjective standard as more stringent without deciding which standard applies holding that defendant is not entitled to a jury trial to determine whether terms of supervised release have been violated holding that the least sophisticated consumer standard applies to whether  1692e has been violated holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to  523 claims