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.
I will say at the outset that I get the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a strict liability statute — meaning a violation is a violation whether the defendant intended to do whatever it did or not — but this, to me, seemed like a case that never had to get this far, which is a fairly common statement when reviewing complaints. A plaintiff is suing a collector for violating the FDCPA because it sent five emails over a five-week span attempting to collect on a debt that the plaintiff says was paid in full. Did the plaintiff do anything about it? Did he call the defendant to work it out? You can probably guess the answer.
The Background: The plaintiff claims to have received an email last September from the original creditor confirming that his device plan had been paid in full.
- Starting in November, though, the defendant began sending the plaintiff emails, seeking to collect on an unpaid debt of $20.49 that was owed to the creditor. The emails — sent on November 8 and 24 and December 4, 8, and 12 — all attempted to collect on the same amount and all used the same account number and reference number.
- Receiving these emails caused the plaintiff to suffer from unnecessary and unwanted stress, anxiety, fear, worry, frustration, sleeplessness, nervousness, embarrassment, and humiliation, according to the complaint.
The Claim: The complaint accuses the collector of violating Section 1692f(1) of the FDCPA by attempting to collect a debt not authorized by agreement or otherwise permitted by law. The defendant had all the information it needed to determine the debt was erroneous and did not belong to the plaintiff, but continued to attempted to collect anyway, according to the complaint.
