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.
If you are going to communicate with consumers via email, and allow them to send email back to you, then companies need to be ready to reply to those emails. A collector is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit for allegedly failing to respond to an email dispute submitted by the plaintiff and sending additional emails without allegedly validating the debt.
A copy of the complaint, removed by the defendant to the District Court for the Central District of California, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-01004 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff received an email communication from the defendant attempting to collect on an unpaid debt. The next day, the plaintiff allegedly “sent a letter to Defendant via email” that disputed the debt and demanded validation, verification, and proof of the debt. The defendant allegedly never responded to the email sent by the plaintiff.
The defendant allegedly sent 19 emails to the plaintiff in the 14 weeks after the plaintiff sent the dispute email to the defendant.
The complaint accuses the collector of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA, as well as sections of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered mental anguish by way of stress, frustration, and anxiousness, and was allegedly misled and confused by the defendant’s repeated threats and continued collection communications.
