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.
It’s rare for a complaint to include claims from all three of the industry’s food groups — the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act — but this one is attempting the trifecta, alleging the defendant failed to reasonably investigate disputes from the plaintiff, contacted her using an automated telephone dialing system after consent was revoked, and made an unannounced visit to the plaintiff’s house.
The background: When three different laws are involved, the story is going to have a lot of background to it. This story begins with the plaintiff having an ongoing dispute with the defendant. The plaintiff allegedly made multiple attempts to resolve the issue by reaching out to the defendant, seeking clarification on the underlying debt and its reporting on her credit report. Her complaints were related to errors in how the debt was reported, which she felt were inaccurate and damaging to her credit. After several failed attempts to address these issues, the plaintiff formally filed disputes with the credit reporting agencies and directly with the defendant, seeking corrections. The plaintiff also submitted a complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over the alleged failures to investigate the disputes.
- As the dispute continued, the plaintiff revoked her consent for the defendant to contact her by phone. Despite this, she alleges that the defendant persisted in reaching out to her using an automated telephone dialing system, a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiff claims the defendant made 47 calls to her over the span of about six months.
- In addition, the defendant allegedly showed up unannounced at the plaintiff’s residence and affixing a collection notice to her door.
The claims:The plaintiff’s complaint details violations of the following federal and state laws:
- FDCPA: The plaintiff claims the defendant violated Sections 1692b, 1692c(a)(1), 1692c(c), 1692d, and 1692g(b) of the FDCPA, along with Sections 1006.34(c)(2), 1006.38(b)(1), and 1006.38(d)(2) of Regulation F.
- FCRA: Under the FCRA, creditors and collection agencies are required to conduct a reasonable investigation into disputes about credit reporting. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to adequately investigate her dispute regarding the inaccurate reporting of the debt, as outlined in Section 1681s-2(b).
- TCPA: The defendant allegedly violation Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA for using an automatic telephone dialing system to make 47 calls to the plaintiff’s cell phone.
