A District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a credit card company’s petition to confirm an arbitration award in the amount of $286,064.62 against an individual who had accused the company of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing hundreds of debt collection calls to his phone without his consent. The individual had filed an arbitration claim against the company, and the company filed a counterclaim accusing the individual of fraud and and breach of contract.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Credit One v. Lieberman can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff opened a credit card in his wife’s name — with her Social Security number and birthdate — but listed his work address and his phone number on the application as the cardholder’s contact information. The card went into default and the company began making calls to collect on the debt. The company allegedly made more than 600 calls, often calling up to 10 times per day, to try and collect on the debt.
The individual filed an arbitration claim, accusing the company of violating the TCPA by making calls to his phone without his consent. The company then filed its counterclaim. An arbitrator dismissed the individual’s claim and entered judgment in favor of the company, awarding it $286,064.61 in fees and expenses.
A month later, both sides filed motions, with the individual attempting to have the award vacated while the company sought to have it confirmed.
The husband and wife argued that the arbitrator disregarded the law and abused his powers in issuing the ruling in favor of the credit card company. But Judge Anne Thompson of the District Court for the District of New Jersey didn’t see it that way. The cardholder agreement stated that if the applicant provided phone numbers to which he or she was not the subscriber, the applicant indemnified the credit card company “for any costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred as a result of us attempting to contact you at the number(s).”
Eric Troutman at TCPAWorld.com has a write-up of the case
