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 facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit for leaving a voicemail that does not meet the conditions for being a limited content message because it included “extraneous content” that were “vague and veiled threats”
The Background: Last October, the plaintiff started receiving calls from the defendant to collect on an unspecified debt. The defendant allegedly placed calls to the plaintiff’s cell phone and to her husband’s cell phone, as well. The defendant allegedly left voicemail messages for the plaintiff and her husband. One of the messages said:
- “This is a very important message from [defendant]. Please return our call at [number] or press 1 to be connected to a live representative who can assist you. Again, this is a very important and time-sensitive call from [defendant]. Please contact [number] to be connected. Have a great day.”
- The complaint alleges that because the message was not a limited content message under Regulation F, it was required to disclose that the defendant was calling the plaintiff in an attempt to collect a debt.
- The complaint also alleges that the defendant made vague and veiled threats with unnecessary and confusing statements and innuendo, which created a false sense of urgency.
- As a refresher, in order for a message to be considered a limited content message under Reg F, it must include only the following information:
- A company name that does not indicate that the caller is a debt collector
- Telephone number(s) that can be used to reply to the message
- A request that the consumer reply and the names of the people who can be contacted to reply
The Claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692e(11), and 1692f of the FDCPA because it failed to state that the communication attempt was an attempt to collect on a debt.
- The suit also accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692c(c) and 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA by contacting the plaintiffs despite knowing they were represented by an attorney and by continuing to call despite receiving a cease-and-desist request from the plaintiff and her attorney. There is no mention in the factual allegations portion of the complaint about the plaintiff being represented by an attorney or that a cease-and-desist request had been sent.
