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.
For all the “man bites dog” cases that are out there, it’s helpful from time to time to share a reminder of the rank-and-file type of lawsuits that are filed against collection operation and that some claims never go away. A collector is facing a class-action lawsuit over claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because it allegedly failed to honor a request to cease communications with the plaintiff and because it made calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice without the plaintiff’s permission.
The background: The plaintiff took out a personal loan and fell behind on making the scheduled payments. The account was placed with the defendant, which started making calls to collect on the unpaid debt.
- The plaintiff allegedly answered one of the calls and requested that the defendant cease “its harassing collection calls,” according to the complaint.
- The defendant allegedly continued to make calls, and started leaving voicemails on the plaintiff’s cellular phone. These calls were placed using a prerecorded or artificial message, according to the complaint.
- The defendant has made “numerous” calls to the plaintiff, including multiple calls on the same day.
- At no point did the plaintiff allegedly provide his cell number to the defendant or otherwise consent to receiving calls, according to the complaint.
- Among the damages suffered by the plaintiff are: the aggravation that accompanies unwanted calls, the increased risk of personal injury resulting from the distraction caused by the unwanted calls, and wear and tear to the plaintiff’s cell phone.
The claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by placing calls to the plaintiff utilizing an artificial or prerecorded voice without the plaintiff’s consent.
- The suit also accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692c(a)(1) and 1692d(5) of the FDCPA by placing at least 50 calls to the plaintiff knowing that the plaintiff didn’t want to receive any calls.
- The suit seeks to include anyone else who received a collection call on their cell phone using an artificial or prerecorded voice from the defendant without providing consent to be contacted.
