Moreover, although a private right of action exists under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A to vindicate a private citizen's rights for unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as correctly noted by the Defendant, “a failure to respond to a demand letter does not in and of itself constitute a valid claim under Chapter 93A.” Da Silva v U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 11-11416, 885 F.Supp.2d 500, 506 (D. Mass. 2012); Williams v Mann, 83 Mass.App.Ct. 1110, 982 N.E.2d 72, 72 (Feb. 1, 2013)(“The failure to respond to a Chapter 93A demand letter is not itself a violation of our consumer protection law: rather, the lack of a response may be considered in calculating damages in the event a violation is shown.”);

But "[t]he failure to respond to a c. 93A demand letter is not itself a violation of our consumer protection law; rather, the lack of response may be considered in calculating damages in the event a violation is shown." Williams v. Mann, 2013 WL 373653, at *1 (Mass.App.Ct. Feb. 1, 2013) (unpublished). Defendants rely on Silva v. Rent-a-Center, 912 N.E.2d 945 (Mass. 2009), in support of their argument that the water heater lease does not fit within the definition of a "credit sale" or a "retail installment sale agreement" and, therefore, that Counts I, III, and IV should be dismissed.