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.
One call. That’s all it takes to end up as a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class-action. A bank is facing claims it violated the TCPA when played a message using what the plaintiff alleges is an artificial or prerecorded voice in what appears to be a location information request looking for someone with the same last name as the plaintiff.
The background: Back in February, the plaintiff received a call from the defendant. In the message, the representative identified herself and the name of the bank and said that this was an important message for an individual with the same last name as the plaintiff. The message indicated that the call was being made to this number because it was listed as a reference number for the individual and the plaintiff was listed “as a person who could possibly connect us.” The rest of the message included the representative’s contact information and a statement indicating that the representative could not help the individual if it was ignored and that the representative was trying to avoid having the account escalated.
- The lawsuit alleges the call was made by an artificial or prerecorded voice and was not made by a human because of the following reasons: the voice on the message was monotone, there was a false start before the message played, there were “long, unnatural pauses” in between words and sentences, the intonation used rising inflection at the end of sentences instead of falling intonation, and there were no vocal pauses or “human fillers” like “um, uh, so, etc.”
- The suit alleges that the defendant obtained the plaintiff’s phone number through a third party and as a result of “some form of skip tracing.”
- The suit also mentions other online complaints that have been made about the defendant placing calls to incorrect individuals.
The claims: The suit alleges the defendant violated Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by making calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice without prior express consent and without an emergency purpose to the plaintiff and members of the class.
- The suit seeks to include anyone who received a call from the defendant on their cell phone in which the defendant used an artificial or prerecorded voice. It doesn’t mention anything about whether consent was provided or not.
