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.
When is a collection call not a collection call? That may be the thrust of this case, in which a collection operation is facing class-action claims it allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act for not identifying itself and for not informing the plaintiff that a call was being recorded when it contacted the plaintiff attempting to reach someone he knew.
The background: The plaintiff received a call from the defendant last month and answered it based solely on the fact that the area code of the incoming call made him believe the call was related to his work.
- The representative asked the plaintiff if they had reached the plaintiff, who responded affirmatively.
- The agent, according to the complaint, did not identify himself (or herself) and did not answer when the plaintiff asked who was calling. The agent asked the plaintiff to deliver a message to the debtor and the plaintiff refused. The defendant allegedly pretended to be a regular person, according to the complaint.
- That was the extent of the interaction.The call lasted approximately one minute, according to the complaint.
- The representative made no disclosures and did not inform the plaintiff that the call was being recorded.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692d(6) of the FDCPA by making a call without disclosing the caller’s identity, and for violating the CIPA by recording a cellular conversation without the consent of the other party.
- The complaint seeks to create two classes of plaintiffs — one of individuals who were contacted by the defendant where it did not disclose its identity and one of individuals living in California who had their calls recorded by the defendant.
