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 claim for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and individual claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act related to a handful of Zortman voicemail messages that were left on the plaintiff’s cell phone after the plaintiff allegedly revoked consent to be contacted. The messages were allegedly made using an artificial or pre-recorded voice because they were identical, according to the complaint.
The background: In March, the plaintiff started receiving phone calls from the defendant. During one of the calls, the plaintiff requested that the defendant stop calling her cell phone, according to the complaint. The defendant continued making calls, and when the plaintiff did not answer, the defendant left a voicemail message.
- The message stated: “Hello, we are with an important message from [defendant]. This is a call from a debt collector. Please call [phone number].”
- It was “clear” that the voicemails used an artificial and/or prerecorded voice because
- all the voicemails contained the identical message
- all the voicemails were the same duration
- the voicemails were all monotone and were conspicuously not left by a live representative
- none of the voicemails identified the plaintiff by name
- Let’s compare the defendant’s messages with a Zortman voicemail, which states: “We have an important message from [company’s name]. This is a call from a debt collector. Please call [company’s telephone number].”
- The defendant is accused of leaving four voicemails after the plaintiff requested the calls cease and for making calls in the first place without obtaining consent to contact the plaintiff’s cell phone.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by making cals using an artificial or prerecorded voice to a cell phone. The complaint seeks to include anyone in the United States who received a similar call from the defendant attempting to collect a debt from the same original creditor.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692c(a)(1), 1692d, and 1692d(5) of the FDCPA by making calls after the plaintiff had revoked consent to be contacted, which made any attempt an inconvenient one.
