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.
This is one of those “cautionary tale” type of posts, meant to illustrate just how quickly consumers are expecting collectors to honor requests to cease communications. It’s also a great way to set up the webinar that is coming next Friday, December 27 on this very topic (Register here).
A collection operation is facing claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it did not honor a request from the plaintiff to cease communications, even though the offending message was sent the day after the cease request was made.
The background: On September 2, according to the complaint, the plaintiff received an email from the defendant, seeking to recover $4,133.51 that was owed to a cell phone carrier. It might be worth noting that the email appeared to be a Model Validation Notice.
- The next day, September 3, the plaintiff responded to the email, “explicitly” stating that she refused to pay the debt, which allegedly should have indicated to the defendant that the defendant should cease any further communications
- The email that the plaintiff sent stated, “Hey [defendant] agents/employees I refuse to pay this alleged debt of $4,133.51. Have a great day.”
- On September 4, the defendant allegedly sent a text message to the plaintiff attempting to collect on the debt. The message said, “Hello from [defendant] debt collector. Call [phone number] or visit [portal link] #msgs vary. Msg&data rates may apply. Reply STOP to opt out.”
- The actions of the defendant were also not the result of a bona fide error, according to the plaintiff because the defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to ensure compliance with the FDCPA.
The claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692c(c) and 1692f of the FDCPA. The defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff to suffer from severe headaches frustration, anger, and anxiety and has taken a toll on the plaintiff’s daily activities, according to the complaint.
