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.
In one of the few cases I have seen alleging that a collector violated the 7-in-7 provisions of Regulation F, a lawsuit has been filed against a collection operation — and its president and chief executive officer — for violating Reg F and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for making more than seven calls in a 7-day period and for not waiting at least seven days to attempt to communicate with the plaintiff after having a conversation.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-02767 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff allegedly opted not to renew a home alarm system, but the creditor allegedly renewed the contract without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, and then sold the unpaid debt to the defendant. The defendant allegedly called the plaintiff “every day and multiple times per day” during the year preceding the filing of the lawsuit, which was in early December. The plaintiff allegedly answered some of the defendant’s calls and asked the plaintiff to stop calling while also allegedly informing the representative that she did not owe the debt in question. The complaint alleges that the defendant continued to call, making calls within seven days of the conversations that the plaintiff had with the representative.
The complaint alleges the defendants violated Section 1692d, 1692d(5), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA and Sections 1006.6 and 1006.14 of Regulation F. The complaint also alleges the defendants violated provisions of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
