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.
This is one of those times where I am writing about a complaint because it’s emblematic of a number of complaints I have seen in recent months and it’s definitely worth making sure your policies and procedures in this area are appropriately buttoned up. There have been a number of complaints filed, including this one, accusing collectors of attempting to communicate with consumers at inconvenient times and places because they are allegedly not honoring requests from consumers who are asking to be communicated with via specific channels.
The complaint in this case, filed in the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-00927 or by clicking here.
In this case, the plaintiff allegedly wrote a letter to the defendant, notifying it that the only convenient way to contact the consumer was via email. The complaint doesn’t mention whether the letter included the plaintiff’s email address or not, and it also doesn’t mention any other communications other than the letter that was sent from the plaintiff to the defendant.
The letter was allegedly sent via certified mail and delivered to the defendant. Two weeks later, the defendant sent another letter to the plaintiff.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(a)(1) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The plaintiff suffered actual damages, according to the complaint, in the form of anxiety, anger, decreased ability to focus on tasks while at work, frustration, other negative emotions, and damages to his credit score.
This is not the only complaint I have seen in the past month or two where a plaintiff allegedly communicates to a defendant that he or she wants to be contacted via specific methods and those instructions are not followed. It definitely seems like something that plaintiff’s attorneys are paying attention to and considering low-hanging fruit for potential FDCPA lawsuits.
