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 debt collector is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit because it allegedly required two plaintiffs to make contact either through its portal or by making a phone call which was a problem because the terms and conditions of using the portal required the plaintiff to consent to receive electronic communications — but the plaintiffs wanted the defendant to stop contacting them.
The Background: The plaintiffs received separate emails from the defendant. The emails “caused anxiety similar to fire alarms going off” in the head of one of the plaintiffs “and she felt unable to put out the fire.” The plaintiff did not want to receive any further communications from the defendant, according to the complaint. The contents of the email indicated the plaintiff could contact the defendant through its online portal or by telephone. But in order to create an account to access the portal, the plaintiff had to accept the defendant’s terms and conditions, which included agreeing to receive electronic communications — the very communications the plaintiff wanted to stop.
- This left the plaintiff confused because the terms and conditions “directly contradicted” her notification preferences.
- Contacting the defendant over the phone wasn’t an option, according to the complaint, because cease communication requests need to be made in writing.
- The plaintiff replied to the email to ask for communications to cease, but the email was “rejected” because the defendant “used a no-reply email address” rather than a “bidrectional communication” channel, according to the complaint.
- The defendant sent two more emails and called and left a voicemail for the plaintiff.
The Claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d and 1692f of of the FDCPA as well as state law in Wisconsin and Florida, where the plaintiffs reside.
