A District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case after it was accused of using an automated telephone dialing system when attempting to contact the plaintiff, ruling that the plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to support the claim.
The background: The case stemmed from a series of phone calls made by the defendant, a debt collection company, to the plaintiff’s personal cell phone between May and July 2023. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made at least 29 unsolicited calls during this period, despite the plaintiff’s repeated requests to stop calling and his registration on the National Do Not Call Registry.
- The plaintiff allegedly informed the defendant that he was not the person the defendant was trying to reach.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated the TCPA and used an ATDS because:
- He continued to receive calls from the defendant after explaining that he was not the person the defendant was trying to reach.
- He received phone calls that included scripted voicemails of an impersonal nature.
The ruling: Judge Michael A. Shipp granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on several grounds:
- Insufficient ATDS Allegations: The court found that the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the use of an ATDS were conclusory and lacked specific facts to support the claim. Judge Shipp noted, “A complaint must do more than simply parrot the definition of ATDS when bringing a claim under Section 227(a)(1)”.
- Conflicting Claims: The plaintiff’s allegations of ongoing conversations with the defendant’s representatives contradicted claims of receiving artificial or prerecorded messages.
- Non-Solicitation Calls: The court emphasized that debt collection calls are not considered “telephone solicitations” under the TCPA. Judge Shipp cited the Federal Communications Commission’s statement that “calls regarding debt collection or to recover payments are not subject to the TCPA’s … restrictions on ‘telephone solicitations.'”
