Whether oral disputes under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act must be treated with the same validity as written disputes

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW 1. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(8), 16929(a)(3), is a debt collector required to treat a consumer’s oral dispute with the same validity as one made in writing as held by the First, Second (pre-Huebner), Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits, together with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB); or treat the dispute with less validity as held by the Third Circuit for not being in writing; further is the collector precluded from requiring the consumer disputing a debt to disclose why there is a dispute, as held by the First, Second (pre-Huebner), Fifth, and Seventh Circuits, together with the CFPB; or as the Second Circuit (post-Huebner), which held the collector can treat the dispute with less validity for failing to disclose “why” there is a dispute; or as the First, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits held that the statutory protection of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) “knows or should know” standard requires no notification by the consumer, written or oral, and instead, depends solely on the debt collector's knowledge that a debt is disputed? 2. Does the evaluation of the least sophisticated consumer rest upon a question of fact as held by the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits together with the States of New York, Maryland, and California; or a question of law as held by the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits together with the State of Oklahoma?