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.
If there is a minimum standard that is required for what you need to allege when filing a lawsuit against someone else, I kind of feel that this complaint barely cleared the hurdle. It’s like watching a high jumper or pole vaulter get over the bar, but the bar wiggles and shakes and looks like it’s going to fall but barely stays up. Before I get into the details, I did want to make sure to note that I am not making light of this lawsuit. Being sued is an unfortunate byproduct of being in the collection industry, and defending against those lawsuits is expensive. I chose to write about this particular complaint to illustrate just how bare-bones a lawsuit can be that will likely cost thousands of dollars — or more — to address. A collection operation is facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F because it sent emails to the plaintiff after the plaintiff allegedly unsubscribed from receiving emails from the defendant.
The background: Normally, I need to summarize the background to make it easier for you to read it. Today, I don’t need to do that.
- On a date better know to the defendant, Plaintiff Cole Cattenhead allegedly incurred a debt
- The debt allegedly incurred was for personal, familial, and household purposes.
- Within the last year, Defendant has made several collection attempts against Plaintiff concerning this personal debt including sending emails.
- On or around June 28, 2024, Plaintiff unsubscribed to receiving emails.
- Defendant intentionally disregarded Plaintiff’s request and continued sending Plaintiff e-mails.
That’s it. That is the sum and total of the allegations made against the defendant. The complaint is eight pages long, and there are five sentences dedicated to what the defendant allegedly did wrong.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA and Section 1006.6 of RegulationF as well as Section 1788.17 of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for attempting to communicate with the plaintiff after the plaintiff requested communications be ceased.
- The suit seeks to include anyone else living in California who received collection emails from the defendant concerning debts for personal, household, or family purposes after they unsubscribed.
