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’m going to say right from the start that this article probably isn’t worth reading. It’s something I noticed and it’s likely not a coincidence, but I’m also not sure it’s a trend or cautionary tale that you need to be worried about. I found it to be odd and strange and since I’m in charge of what gets posted in these parts, I decided to make a mention of it. Beyond that, there probably isn’t much there. They say that lightning never strikes the same place twice. And, as we all no doubt know, there are millions (if not more) ways that an individual can dispute a debt. But what are the odds of two different plaintiffs sending the exact same dispute message to the same defendant one day apart from each other? And when you see what the dispute message is, you’ll no doubt note that the odds of two people doing this randomly are very very small.
The Background: Two different plaintiffs – both living in different parts of New York City – received communications from the same defendant that was seeking to recover an unpaid debt that each owed. One plaintiff received three text messages from the defendant, on December 10, 14, and 16 to recover an unpaid credit card debt. The other plaintiff received an email from the defendant seeking to recover an unpaid credit card debt that was owed to a different creditor.
On December 18, the plaintiff who received the three text messages replied to the defendant, saying, “The holidays are here, and I want to spend my money on gifts for my family. I decline to pay. Happy Holidays!”
On December 19, the plaintiff who received the email sent a reply back to the defendant, saying “The holidays are here, and I want to spend my money on gifts for my family. I decline to pay. Happy Holidays!”
The plaintiff who received the three text messages allegedly received another text message after sending her reply. This new message came three days later and was an attempt to collect on the unpaid debt, according to the complaint. The plaintiff who received the email received a reply from the defendant nine days after sending in her refusal to pay. The email said that “I understand you’d like to start paying but can’t pay today” and offered instructions about how to set up a payment plan.
Both plaintiffs are being represented by the same attorney.
What are the odds that two different plaintiffs would send exactly that message to the defendant? Defies any logic, doesn’t it?
The Claims: Both suits accuse the defendant of violating Section 1692c(c) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by communicating with the consumer after the consumer notifies the collector in writing that he or she refuses to pay.
Learn More. And Even More
