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.
One of the challenges when it comes to communicating with consumers via text messages about unpaid debts are the character limits. In the course of our normal day, we use slang, emojis, and text-ese (think u instead of you) to communicate efficiently and effectively. That isn’t necessarily very professional, so collectors have to do things by the book. But that forces them to make decisions about what to include. A consumer has filed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit against a collector for sending text messages that attempted to collect on an unpaid debt for which the statute of limitations had purportedly expired, without including any language or disclosures related to that possibility.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the District of South Carolina, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-01870 or by clicking here.
Last June, the plaintiff began receiving text messages from the defendant, attempting to collect on an unpaid debt that was incurred in 2016, according to the complaint. There has been no attempt to collect on the debt since that time and the statute of limitations in South Carolina is three years, according to the complaint.
The text messages also offered the opportunity for the plaintiff to settle the debt for less than the full balance owed and included a deadline to accept the order. The deadline created a false sense of urgency and implied the plaintiff could face legal action if he did not settle the debt, according to the complaint.
The actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff to “experience anger, stress, worry, frustration, embarrassment, and emotional distress,” according to the complaint, while also invading her privacy.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692g(b) of the FDCPA.
