(See Compl. Ex. A, Dkt. 1-1.) Even the least sophisticated consumer is deemed to be willing and able to read a collection letter in its entirety and with some care. See Greco, 412 F.3d 363 (quoting Clomon, 988 F.2d at 1319); see also Weinberg v. CKS Fin., LLC, No. 19-CV-2666 (LDH) (RML), 2020 WL 5369058, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2020) (“[A] debt-collection letter should be read ‘as a whole' to determine whether it is ‘reasonably susceptible to misinterpretation or likely to cause a debtor to misunderstand his rights.'” (quoting Shapiro v. Dun & Bradstreet Receivable Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 59 Fed.Appx. 406, 409 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary order))). The least sophisticated consumer, moreover, is not a “dolt”-or, for that matter, a “Philadelphia lawyer.”
The statement that the debt was scheduled to be reported is ambiguous, but read in context it is not threatening. See Weinberg v. CKS Fin., LLC, No. 19-CV-2666, 2020 WL 5369058, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2020) ("[A] debt-collection letter should be read 'as a whole' to determine whether it is 'reasonably susceptible to misinterpretation or likely to cause a debtor to misunderstand his rights.'") (quoting Shapiro v. Dun & Bradstreet Receivable Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 59 F. App'x 406, 409 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary order)). There is an issue of fact, however, as to whether the statement that the debt was scheduled to be reported is misleading or false.