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 creditor is facing a lawsuit for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act while also invoking provisions of Regulation F for placing “repeated” calls to the plaintiff after she informed the defendant she was unable to repay the debt in question.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of California, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-01874 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff obtained a line of credit from the defendant, but fell behind on her payments due to a financial hardship. The defendant began contacting the plaintiff to recover the unpaid debt. When answering a call from the defendant, the plaintiff is allegedly subjected to a pre-recorded and/or artificial message prompting her to hold while she is connected to a live representative. When the plaintiff does not answer the phone, the defendant allegedly leaves a pre-recorded and/or artificial message asking her to return the call.
During one conversation, the plaintiff informed a representative of the defendant that she has limited financial resources, but the defendant has “persisted” with its collection efforts, leading the plaintiff to demand that the defendant stop calling her.
Undeterred, the defendant “willfully ignored” the demand and continued placing calls to the plaintiff for the next several weeks, including multiple calls on the same day, according to the complaint.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 227(b)(1)(iii) of the TCPA by calling individuals on their cell phones using an automated telephone dialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded message without their consent. The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating the RFDCPA because it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, specifically Section 1692c(a)(1) and 1692d by engaging in behavior intended to harass an individual in connection with the collection of a debt.
The complaint also references Section 1006.14(b)(2) of Regulation F in regards to calls that are made repeatedly and continuously, and Section 1006.14(h) which prohibits collectors from contacting consumers if the consumer has revoked permission to be contacted via that channel.
