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 because it responded to a request from the plaintiff to only be contacted via email with an email that was sent from a “non-responding email account” that instructed the plaintiff to call or send postal mail if he wanted to respond, and for not marking an account as disputed with the credit reporting agencies.
The Background: The plaintiff noticed an item on his credit report on April 17. The next day, he mailed a letter to the defendant, disputing the debt and indicating that he only wanted to communicate via email. The defendant received the letter on April 25, according to the complaint. On April 30, the defendant sent the plaintiff an email in response to his dispute.
- The email was sent from a representative of the defendant using an email address that bore her name. But the email stated that it had “been send from a non-responding email account.” The response email also instructed the plaintiff to “only” contact the defendant by telephone or postal mail. This apparently frustrated the plaintiff, who felt he was being denied the ability to communicate with the defendant through his preferred communication method.
- The email that was sent by the representative also allegedly did not include the opportunity for the plaintiff to opt out of receiving emails. It’s interesting to note that the lack of an opt-out was an issue, because this was, after all, the plaintiff’s preferred communication channel.
- On May 3, the defendant updated the plaintiff’s credit report with the credit reporting agencies and did not mark his account as disputed, according to the complaint.
The Claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e(8), and 1692f of the FDCPA.
