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 collection operation is facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act as well as state law in Ohio for attempting to communicate with the plaintiff via his cell phone after he revoked consent to be communicated and for sending a Model Validation Notice that did not provide at least 30 days for the debt to be disputed.
The background: The complaint initially says the calls started in October 2023, but later goes on to provide dates and times from October 2024 when the defendant allegedly tried to contact the plaintiff’s cell phone, which the plaintiff claims he did not consent to receiving.
- After receiving a handful of calls that he did not answer, the plaintiff answered a call from the defendant and was told about the debt. The plaintiff denied owing the debt, disputed it, and said that he was working with the original creditor to resolve any billing issues, according to the complaint. The representative allegedly told the plaintiff in a rude, hostile, and dismissive tone that the debt was owed and that the creditor would not speak with him. The plaintiff then allegedly revoked consent to be contacted by phone and asked that all communications be done through the mail.
- Three hours later, the defendant allegedly attempted to call the plaintiff. The plaintiff allegedly informed the representative that he had revoked consent earlier in the day.
- Four days later, on October 15, the plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice. The notice does not appear to have a date on it. It informed the plaintiff that he had until November 13 to dispute all or part of the debt.
- The plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant disputing the debt and informing it that it had allegedly violated state and federal law. The letter invited the defendant to call the plaintiff (this time calls were ok) and discuss a settlement. The letter included screenshots of calls and call logs that the plaintiff allegedly received.
- The defendant did not respond to the letter and allegedly continued making calls to the plaintiff.
The claims: The plaintiff is seeking to create three separate classes of plaintiffs. One related to receiving calls from the defendant on a cell phone without providing express consent to be contacted, in violation of the TCPA; one related to receiving calls from the defendant after consent to be called had been revoked, in violation of the FDCPA; and one for individuals who received a validation notice from the defendant but were not provided 30 days to dispute the debt, in violation of the FDCPA.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act because of the alleged violations of the FDCPA and TCPA.
Read the complaint. Read the letter
