A District Court judge in Oklahoma has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and Oklahoma state law because it used phone numbers with the same area code as the plaintiff’s and because the plaintiff believes the calls were made using an autodialer.
The background: The plaintiff claimed that the defendant made four calls to him in October and November 2024. The calls came from numbers with the same Oklahoma area code as the plaintiff’s number.
- He argued that the calls were placed using an autodialer, lacked caller ID information, and did not provide a way to opt out while waiting for an agent.
- The lawsuit alleged violations of the FDCPA, TCPA, the Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act, and a state-law claim for invasion of privacy.
The ruling: Judge Scott L. Palk of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the case, finding the plaintiff had not established proper jurisdiction or venue in Oklahoma. The complaint did not allege where the plaintiff was located when he received the calls or provide facts connecting the defendant’s conduct to Oklahoma. The court emphasized that having a 405 area code, on its own, was insufficient to show the defendant purposefully directed its conduct toward Oklahoma.
- On the FDCPA claim, the judge noted the plaintiff failed to allege that he was a “consumer” with a qualifying debt or that the calls attempted to collect a consumer debt. As the ruling explained, “the mere fact that a debt collection call may be unwanted does not render it inconvenient such that it violates the FDCPA.”
- On the TCPA claim, the court acknowledged the plaintiff’s allegations were “bare-bones” but said they were just enough to support an inference that an autodialer may have been used. Still, the lack of jurisdiction and venue ultimately doomed the case.
- The OTSA claims were also dismissed because that statute applies to sales calls, not debt collection.
- The state law invasion of privacy claim survived, though the overall case was dismissed unless the plaintiff successfully seeks leave to amend.
