A District Court judge in Missouri has certified a class action against a collection operation accused of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act over wrong number calls that were made to the plaintiffs.
The background: The case was filed after the plaintiffs alleged they received repeated prerecorded calls on their cellphones attempting to collect medical debts owed by individuals other than those who were receiving the calls.
- According to the complaint, one plaintiff received a call intended for someone else and used the automated prompt to indicate it was a wrong number. Another allegedly received numerous calls over several months, repeatedly told live agents to stop calling, and still continued to receive prerecorded voicemails.
- The plaintiffs alleged the calls violated the TCPA because they were made using an artificial or prerecorded voice to cellular numbers without consent.
- They sought statutory damages, injunctive relief, and certification of a nationwide class consisting of people who received similar wrong number robocalls in connection with past-due medical debt.
- The defendant opposed certification, arguing that questions about who actually received the calls, who owned the phone numbers, and whether consent once existed would overwhelm any common issues. The company also pointed to its use of call records and reassigned number defenses as reasons class treatment would be unmanageable.
The ruling: Judge John A. Ross of the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri disagreed with the defendant and granted class certification. Central to the ruling was the judge’s conclusion that call logs identifying cellphone numbers flagged as wrong numbers were sufficient to objectively identify potential class members.
- Quoting binding appellate precedent, Judge Ross emphasized that “the best objective indicator of the recipient is the person who subscribed to the number,” and that uncertainty about whether every identified person ultimately has a valid claim does not defeat certification.
- The judge also rejected arguments that potential defenses, including reassigned number issues or the possibility that some recipients actually owed debts, required individualized trials. Those issues, the judge noted, could be addressed through records and exclusions without undermining classwide treatment.
- The class period was slightly narrowed to avoid overlap with a prior settlement, but Judge Ross otherwise concluded that a class action was the most efficient way to resolve claims involving potentially hundreds of thousands of alleged wrong number calls
