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.
By and large, consumers are not a patient bunch these days. They expect things quickly. Thank you, Amazon and Apple and Google and everyone else who has trained us that we can get things faster and faster. What makes things even more complicated is that consumers are not always clear about what they want and what they are asking. Layer those two dynamics on top of one another and you have the basis for a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit that was filed in Washington federal court.
The background: Back on May 19, the plaintiff received a communication from the defendant, attempting to collect on an unpaid debt. At first, the complaint said the defendant sent the plaintiff an email. Then, in the next paragraph, the complaint alleges that the defendant sent a text message to the plaintiff, indicating the defendant was an “Accounts Receivables Specialists” and that the plaintiff could contact them using the phone number or website that was included in the message. Whether this was an email or a text is not really relevant to the story. It’s what comes next that matters.
- On May 21 at 8:09am the plaintiff sent a text message response back to the defendant, stating “I choose not to pay this.”
- At 12:05pm that same day, the defendant sent a text message back to the plaintiff, although the complaint does not mention what the defendant said in this message.
- The message at 12:05pm caused “significant emotional distress” to the plaintiff and caused her to suffer “anger, anxiety, frustration, a decreased ability to focus on work, severe emotional distress, and other negative emotional and physical symptoms, such as headaches,” according to the complaint. Must have been a powerful text message.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by failing to cease collection activity after receiving written notice from the plaintiff that “he refused to pay the alleged debt that Defendant was attempting to collect.” I only included this section as a direct quotation because it’s pretty clear from the rest of the complaint that the plaintiff is female and I like to point out these kinds of mistakes. Whether “I choose not to pay this” counts as a cease request is for the judge to decide.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Section 1006.6(c)(1) of Regulation F by communicating with the consumer despite being notified in writing that the consumer refuses to pay the debt or that the consumer wants the collector to cease further communication with the consumer.
