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 you read enough complaints, you start to tell the ones that are written by professionals. An individual who has filed more than 75 lawsuits against different companies alleging they violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act has accused a collection operation of violating the statute, accusing it of using an automated telephone dialing system to call him without his prior consent, and for not having a live representative speak to the plaintiff within two seconds after the greeting was completed, among other claims.
The background: The plaintiff received five calls from the defendant, according to the complaint. The first four calls were disconnected after the plaintiff picked up the phone and said, “hello.” In each of the four cases, the plaintiff called the number back that had called him, heard a greeting referencing the name of the defendant, and “demanded” to a live representative that the defendant not call his number again. Each time, the representative asked for the plaintiff’s name, which the plaintiff declined to provide, and each representative allegedly hung up on the plaintiff, according to the complaint.
- On the fifth call, the plaintiff was connected to a live representative. The representative identified herself, informed the plaintiff that the call was being recorded and, in response to a request from the plaintiff, informed him that she was calling on behalf of the defendant regarding an account with a financial institution.
- The plaintiff demanded the representative provide him with a copy of the plaintiff’s written do-not-call policy, which the representative said she did not know what that was. The plaintiff then asked the representative if she had received any training on maintaining a do-not-call list and the representative allegedly said she did not know what the plaintiff was talking about.
- The call was escalated to a supervisor, who declined to mail a copy of the defendant’s do-not-call policy to the plaintiff.
The claims: The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating:
- 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) which prohibits using an ATDS or prerecorded voice to a number for which the party is charged for the call without the party’s prior express consent.
- 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(7) which requires a live sales representative be available within two seconds of the called person’s completed greeting.
- 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(7)(i)(A) for not disclosing the call was for telemarketing purposes, stating the name of the business entity, and providing a number to make a do-not-call request.
- 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(7)(i)(B) for not providing an automated opt-out mechanism for making a do-not-call request.
