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.
Have you ever read a complaint and thought you knew where it was going, only to have it zig where you thought it was going to zag? That kind of explains this complaint, in which the plaintiff ultimately is accusing the defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it allegedly sent an email that did not include instructions for how to opt out of receiving further electronic communications.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is available using case number 23-cv-11251 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant, called the defendant, worked out a settlement arrangement for the debt in question, told the defendant she would call back to make the payment, and then instructed the defendant not to call her back.
All of this appears to have happened in the space of a couple of days — from the time the plaintiff received the letter to the time the payment arrangement was made. Nine days after the letter was received, the plaintiff apparently still had not yet made the payment she said she was going to make, so the defendant sent the plaintiff an email seeking to collect on the debt. It’s at this point that I am thinking the plaintiff is filing suit because the defendant attempted to communicate with the plaintiff after the plaintiff had asked not to be called anymore, and we were going to get into a whole “the plaintiff said not to call so the defendant didn’t call but sent an email so we’re going to get into the weeds of revoking consent from specific channels” but that’s not the plaintiff’s issue. The issue is that the email — which was not included as an exhibit in the complaint — did not contain an opt-out notice, according to the complaint.
The complaint alleges the defendant violated Sections 1692c(c), 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA because it failed to include the opt-out notice at the bottom of the email it sent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered concrete harm as a result of the defendant’s actions though the “aggravation that accompanies unwanted collection tactics resulting in increased blood pressure, loss of time, being subjected to harassing debt collection communications, and violations of her federally-protected interests to be free from harassing, deceptive, oppressive, and abusive debt collection conduct,” according to the complaint.
