EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A pair of lawsuits have been filed against a creditor, accusing it of violating the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the creditor allegedly violated the 7-in-7 call frequency restrictions of Regulation F in attempting to collect on an unpaid debt. The suits also allege the creditor violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an automated telephone dialing system and continuing to place calls after the plaintiffs requested that the defendant stop calling them.
Copies of the complaints in the cases — one filed in the District Court for the Central District of California and one filed in the District Court for the Southern District of California — can be accessed by clicking here and here.
In one suit, the defendant is accused of attempting to contact the plaintiff up to 10 times per day, while in the other suit, the calling frequency is alleged to be between two and six calls per day, both in alleged violation of the RFDCPA and Regulation F. The suits allege that the volume of calls was harassing and oppressive and presumptively violated the FDCPA.
In both suits, the calls were made to the plaintiff’s cell phones. Based on the frequency of the calls, as well as a significant pause — more times than not — between the time the plaintiff answered the phone and when the representative on the other end of the call responded, an ATDS had to have been used, the suits allege. The suits allege the defendant’s conduct was a willful violation of the TCPA, which would entitle the plaintiffs to treble damages beyond the $500 per call for non-willful violations.
