In the first paragraph of the opinion in Hopkins v. Collecto, Inc., the Third Circuit noted that the hypothetical least sophisticated consumer “is not a litigious claim-seeker who hunts, Lagotto-like, for truffles in dunning letters.” (I’m not sure what that means, but it seems snarky.) Here, Collecto sent a letter to Hopkins to collect on a debt that Hopkins initially owed to Verizon but later sold. Hopkins filed a putative class action complaint in the District of New Jersey, alleging that Collecto’s letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hopkins alleged that by itemizing interest and collection fees for his “static debt” and by assigning a “$0.00” value to those columns, the letter’s table falsely implied—in violation of § 1692e and § 1692f of the FDCPA—that interest and fees could accrue and thereby increase the amount of his debt over time. Collecto moved to dismiss Hopkins’s complaint for failure to state a claim, and the District Court dismissed Hopkins’s complaint with prejudice. The Third Circuit affirmed that Hopkins’s complaint failed to state a claim.