A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has granted a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit that accused the defendant of failing to stop sending text messages after the plaintiff opted out of receiving messages.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit after receiving multiple collection-related text messages from the defendant despite replying “STOP” as instructed. The defendant’s messages included a clear opt-out directive, stating that consumers could stop further texts by replying with that keyword. The plaintiff followed those instructions and received confirmation that she had unsubscribed.
- However, the messages did not stop. According to the record, thousands of consumers experienced the same issue. Internal data showed that 4,984 unique phone numbers had sent a “STOP” response but still received additional collection texts.
- The defendant attributed the issue to a “computer bug” and acknowledged that it continued sending messages after receiving opt-out requests.
- The plaintiff sought to represent a class of similarly affected consumers, framing the issue as a systemic failure rather than an isolated error.
The ruling: Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant violated Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by continuing to communicate after receiving a valid cease request. The court emphasized that replying “STOP” to a text message qualifies as a written request to cease communication, aligning with regulatory interpretations of modern communication channels.
- The judge pointed to the defendant’s own records and admissions as evidence that the violations occurred. With no response filed opposing the motion, the court deemed the facts undisputed and the motion unopposed, noting that local rules allow such treatment when a party fails to respond.
- Importantly, the judge rejected the defendant’s reliance on the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense. Judge Mehalchick found no evidence that the violation was unintentional or that the defendant had procedures reasonably adapted to prevent such errors. The lack of oversight of the texting vendor and absence of safeguards to ensure opt-out compliance were central to that conclusion.
