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 collection company is facing a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for allegedly making more than 200 calls to the plaintiff after the plaintiff’s attorney sent the defendant a cease-and-desist request.
The background: The plaintiff alleged she was subjected to repeated collection calls — sometimes multiple times per day and more than seven calls in a week — to her personal cell phone using an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) and in which prerecorded messages were used.
- Last January, the plaintiff, through her attorney, sent a written cease-and-desist letter to the defendant, informing the company that she was represented by counsel and revoking any consent to receive further calls or messages. The letter was sent via a third-party mailing service that provided certification of mailing.
- Despite receiving the letter, the defendant allegedly continued making collection calls, leading the plaintiff to file suit. The plaintiff claims that the defendant has made more than 200 calls since it received that communication from her attorney.
The claims: The lawsuit alleges the defendant violated several federal and state consumer protection laws:
- FDCPA Violations: The complaint accuses the defendant of unlawfully communicating with the plaintiff after being notified that she was represented by an attorney, a violation of Section 1692c(a)(2). Additionally, the complaint cites Section 1692d(5), which prohibits calling a consumer repeatedly with intent to harass. The allegations are also being made under the RFDCPA.
- TCPA Violations: The plaintiff contends that the defendant made unauthorized calls to her cell phone using an ATDS or prerecorded voice messages, in violation of Section 227(b)(1) of the TCPA. The complaint argues that the plaintiff had revoked any prior consent to such calls and that the continued attempts to reach her constituted negligent and willful violations of the TCPA.
- The plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages, as well as an injunction to prevent further alleged violations.
