A District Court judge has ruled that using a local area code when attempting to contact an individual is not deceptive conduct under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and dismissed one of the counts against a collection agency.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Mendoza v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., can be accessed by clicking here.
The defendant was accused of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the FDCPA by contacting the plaintiff on her cell phone about a debt incurred by her mother. Despite being based in another state, the area code on the calls made to the plaintiff indicated they were coming from the same geographic region in which the plaintiff lived. The plaintiff alleged that by spoofing its location, the defendant violated Section 1692f of the FDCPA, which prohibits unlawful, illegal, and unconscionable collection activity when collecting on a debt.
This is not the first time that the plaintiff’s family has raised this argument. In what the judge describes as a “nearly identical” case to this one against the same defendant, the plaintiff’s mother tried to make the same argument and was not successful.
Because the phone number “validly” belong to the defendant, it did not use deceptive means to try and contact the plaintiff, Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled.
“Moreover, Plaintiffs allegations do not in any way relate to the types of acts that are prohibited by Section 1692f, nor do they reveal conduct by Defendant that can be construed as unfair or unconscionable,” Judge Surrick wrote. “Section 1692f prohibits debt collectors from: collecting amounts not expressly authorized by agreement or law; soliciting, accepting, or depositing postdated checks; charging individuals for communications by debt collectors; threatening nonjudicial action; communicating through post cards; and using any language or symbol except for the debtor’s address on envelopes. … This complaint is wholly unrelated to the specific types of ‘unfair and unconscionable’ conduct addressed by Section 1692f.”
