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.
This is a case that doesn’t involve a company in the credit and collection industry, per se. And the allegations against the defendant have nothing to do with attempting to collect on a debt. But this class-action Telephone Consumer Protection Act suit does have something that I haven’t seen much of before, but wouldn’t be surprised to see more of later … Google reviews as a means of substantiating the claims being made by the plaintiff.
The background: The complaint details more than 50 calls that were made to the plaintiff, allegedly by the defendant, selling debt resolution services.
- The complaint details the contents of several voicemail messages that were left on the plaintiff’s cell phone. The messages offered a debt consolidation loan and detailed the monthly payment that would be required to repay it. The message asked the plaintiff to hit “2” to accept the order or “9” to decline and to be added to a do not call list.
- The plaintiff finally called one of the numbers back and spent 30 minutes on the phone with a representative of the defendant before the representative identified the name of the company that was making the calls.
- The complaint references Google reviews related to the defendant that reference similar voicemail messages that were left with those leaving the reviews. The complaint also references reviews left with the Better Business Bureau, and nomorobo.
- One interesting note is that the complaint alleges the plaintiff called the defendant “shortly after” receiving a call at 6:55pm on July 14, 2025 and then spent 30 minutes on the phone with a representative. Yet the complaint alleges a call was made to the plaintiff by the defendant at 7:02pm on July 14.
The claims: The complaint alleges the defendant violated Sections 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), 227(c), and 227(c)(5) of the TCPA by making pre-recorded calls without the plaintiff’s prior express consent, and by calling individuals whose numbers were on the Do Not Call list.
- The complaint seeks to include two classes – a pre-recorded class that consists of anyone living in the United States who received a call from the defendant on their cell phone using an artificial or pre-recorded voice, and a do not call class that consists of anyone whose number was on the Do Not Call list and received a recorded message from the defendant.
