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 might be the first time that I’ve seen a consumer claim that a collector did not follow a cease communication request because, through a game of “Telephone” the collector should have known that the consumer did not want to be contacted anymore.
A complaint has been removed to the District Court for the District of Nevada by a defendant that was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it failed to honor a cease communications request from the plaintiff that the plaintiff submitted in a complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And because the defendant responded to the complaint, it knew about and should have honored the request.
A copy of the complaint, originally filed in Nevada state court, can be accessed by using case number 23-cv-01476 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant last July, seeking to recover a debt in the amount of $125 plus an additional $17.50 in fees for a total of $142.50. The letter included the standard 30-day validation notification which says, “If you write to us by August 8, 2023, we must stop collection on any amount you dispute until we send you information that shows you owe the debt.”
On August 3, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the CFPB about the underlying debt and requested that the defendant stop communicating with her. The defendant responded to the plaintiff’s complaint in the portal, which, to the plaintiff, also meant the defendant acknowledged the cease communication request. Then, on August 15, the plaintiff received another letter from the defendant, after having asked — via the CFPB’s complaint portal — for the defendant to stop communicating with her.
The plaintiff accused the defendant of violating Sections 1692b(5), 1692c(c), 1692e, 1692e(10), and 1692f(1) of the FDCPA as well as state law in Nevada.
