Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP, is a debt collector that set out to collect debts on the behalf of Asset Acceptance, LLC. Fulton sent form letters to various consumers stating that their debt had been transferred from Asset Acceptance to Fulton. The letters also directed customers to send any questions and future payments to Fulton. 

Mary Janetos, Erike King, and Pamela Fujioka filed lawsuits against Asset Acceptance and Fulton, which became combined into one action and was eventually certified into a class action. The plaintiffs filed their suit on the basis of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, asserting that the letters sent by Fulton failed to identify the current creditor or owner of the debt and misled consumers. 

The district court ruled in the defendant’s favor and the plaintiffs appealed. In its opinion, the appellate court stated Fulton had violated the FDCPA.

However, Asset Acceptance argued that even if Fulton had violated the FDCPA, Asset Acceptance could not be held vicariously liable for the letters Fulton had drafted and sent. What did the appellate court think of Asset Acceptance’s defense against vicarious liability? What was its reasoning?