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 collection operation is being sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law in Indiana because its calls to the plaintiff were labeled as “Unknown Caller” on the plaintiff’s Caller ID, which induced the plaintiff to answer every call after the plaintiff requested not to contacted by phone.
The Background: The plaintiff signed up for an offer, which included a 30-day cancellation window, which he allegedly exercised. The defendant contacted the plaintiff about the debt in question, and the plaintiff said that he didn’t owe the debt and that he didn’t want to be contacted by phone anymore. He noticed, according to the complaint, that the caller ID on his phone showed “Unknown Caller.”
- An hour later, the plaintiff received another call from Unknown Caller and it was the defendant. As soon as the representative identified himself, the plaintiff terminated the call.
- The defendant continued to call the plaintiff with the calls saying they were coming from an Unknown Caller and the plaintiff answered every call, because he thought it could be important.
- The plaintiff asked the defendant to mail him information and re-stated that he did not want to be contacted by phone. But the calls did not stop, according to the complaint.
The Claims: The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692c(c), 1692d, 1692d(5), 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA as well as the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.
- The plaintiff claims to have been misled by the caller ID into answering the phone and accuses the defendant of not honoring requests to cease communications.
- A least sophisticated consumer would believe that the repeated calls from an Unknown Caller would belong to the defendant, the plaintiff claimed.
