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.
A national bank is facing claims of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after a borrower alleged that dozens of automated collection calls continued even after his attorney sent a cease-and-desist letter directing the bank to communicate only through counsel.
The background: The plaintiff obtained a secured vehicle loan in July 2022 to finance the purchase of a personal vehicle.
- The plaintiff allegedly made regular payments on the loan until April 2024, when he experienced financial hardship and fell behind on the account. The bank repossessed the vehicle in March 2025 and later asserted that a deficiency balance remained outstanding.
- The complaint states that after the repossession, representatives of the bank began calling the plaintiff’s cellular phone in an effort to collect the remaining balance. The plaintiff claims that the calls sometimes occurred multiple times per day and often involved prerecorded or artificial voice messages.
- The borrower eventually retained legal counsel to handle the matter. Last April, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a written cease-and-desist letter to the bank stating that the plaintiff was represented by counsel and revoking consent for calls to his cellular phone using automated dialing systems, prerecorded messages, or similar technology. The letter also instructed that any further communications about the debt should be directed to the attorney.
- Despite that notice, the plaintiff claims that collection calls continued.
- According to the complaint, the bank placed more than 50 calls to the plaintiff’s cellphone after the cease-and-desist letter was sent, sometimes two or three times in a single day and more than seven times per week. The plaintiff alleges that some calls included prerecorded or automated voice messages and that others involved brief delays or silent pauses before a voice message began, which he claims indicates the use of an automated dialing or prerecorded voice system.
- The plaintiff also claims that on several occasions he spoke directly with agents who told him he was delinquent and requested immediate payment on the account.
The claims: The lawsuit accuses the bank of violating the RFDCPA by continuing to communicate directly with the plaintiff after receiving written notice that he was represented by an attorney and that all communications should be directed to counsel.
- The complaint also alleges that the frequency of the calls constituted harassment under the FDCPA standards incorporated into the Rosenthal Act.
- In addition, the plaintiff claims that the continued calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice after consent was revoked violated the TCPA.
