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.
There isn’t anything unusual or inflammatory or that is being highlighted as a potential cautionary tale with this particular lawsuit. In fact, if you continue reading this, you’ll likely to find the facts of the case pretty straightforward and maybe even mundane. But while the facts may not be very exciting, that does not diminish the situation. A collection operation is facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for leaving two voicemail messages that were made using an artificial or prerecorded voice without the plaintiff’s consent. It is interesting — to this non-lawyer, at least — that the complaint does not reference that an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) was used at any point in making the calls or leaving the messages.
The background: The plaintiff received two messages from the defendant — one on January 9, 2025 and one on April 11, 2025, according to the complaint. The messages, according to screenshots included in the complaint.
- The transcript of the messages indicate that the defendant was leaving a limited-content message for the plaintiff. The transcripts read, “Hello, this is [NAME] calling from [DEFENDANT]. Please call me or any of our company representatives or associates between the hours of 8am and 8pm Eastern time Mondays or 8am and 5pm Tuesday through Friday at [NUMBER].”
- The messages were left using a prerecorded voice and were not read by a live person, according to the complaint. One of the ways the plaintiff determined this is because the voice that left the messages was “generic sounding,” according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff did not provide the defendant with consent to be contacted via a prerecorded call, and the defendant’s actions caused “intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal” to the plaintiff and the other members of the class.
The claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by making a call “using any … artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone service … ” [EDITOR’S NOTE: Very crafty use of ellipses here]
- The suit also accuses the defendant of violating regulations issues by the Federal Communications Commission for initiating a call “… using an … artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number…”
- The suit seeks to include a class of anyone who received a prerecorded call from the defendant in the past four years.
