According to consumers, Blume, Connelly has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act through its use of "form" type collection letters. While the use of "form" collection letters is not prohibited by the Act, the act does prohibit any unfair, deceptive, coercive or misleading communications between debt collectors and consumers. The consumers specifically allege that the letters sent by Blume, Connelly were misleading, unfair and deceptive for two reasons. Initially, the consumers claim that the letters gave them the false impression that they had been personally sent by an attorney. According to the consumers, the letters in fact had not been sent by an attorney and had not been reviewed by an attorney. Under the Act, it is considered misleading and deceptive to send a letter that on its face appears to be from an attorney, when in fact it is not. The Act requires that attorneys actually review a debtor's file as well as review all communications with such debtor prior to those communications being sent. The consumers allege that the letters contained obvious errors that would have been corrected if the letters had actually been generated by an attorney. The consumers assert that the letters were most likely computer generated and that an attorney had zero involvement in their drafting.

The consumers further allege that Blume, Connelly has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to provide notice to the consumers of their statutory right to dispute the validity of the alleged debt under collection. Under the Act, those attempting to collect a debt for the benefit of a third party are required to inform the debtor of his or her right to dispute the validity of the debt within 30 days. Generally, this information is provided in the initial communication. However, it must be provided within five days of the initial communication. While the consumers concede that the initial form letters contained information regarding their right to dispute the debt, they claim the remainder of the letter overshadowed this information to the point of rendering it ineffective. The consumers assert that the letter repeatedly demanded the payment of the alleged debt within 30 days and threatened legal action if the debt was not paid within this period. The consumers claim that these demands were misleading and deceptive because they created a false impression that the debt must be paid immediately, when in fact the consumers had up to 30 days to dispute the debt.