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 claims it violated California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act because it allegedly failed to verify or validate the debt in question and also because it failed to obtain consent from the plaintiff when recording calls between the two parties.
The background: Feeling like he did not owe the debt in question, the plaintiff contacted the defendant in April of this year. The plaintiff asked for details about the debt and disputed it, according to the complaint.
- The defendant allegedly never provided any verification or validation of the debt and asserted during the call that it was going to continue attempting to collect on the debt without providing proper verification, according to the complaint.
- The call between the plaintiff and the defendant was also recorded, according to the complaint, and it wasn’t until the end of the call when the representative informed the plaintiff of that fact.
- The defendant has continued to attempt to collect on the debt.
- Given its position as a “powerful and financially robust” debt collector, the defendant should have known its conduct was going to result in the plaintiff feeling confused, harassed, anxious, and without a reasonable means of responding to the defendant’s efforts without the assistance of counsel, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1788.17 of the RFDCPA, which requires that collectors comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when attempting to collect on debts. The complaint alleges the defendant violated Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, 1692g(a), and 1692g(b) by failing to verify the debt when asked by the consumer.
- The complaint also alleges the defendant violated the CIPA because it did not disclose to the plaintiff that the call was being recorded “until well after” the plaintiff had disclosed confidential information to the defendant.
