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.
It’s not sexy or salacious, but it’s definitely something that is popping up more and more on the dockets of federal judges in California; a collection operation is facing claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for sending communications to the plaintiff that did not include the defendant’s license number for California.
The background: Back in February, the plaintiff received an email communication from the defendant attempting to collect on an unpaid debt. The email did not include the defendant’s California license number showing it had applied for or obtained a license from the state’s Department of Financial Protection & Innovation.
- The plaintiff also believes she has received other digital or written communications from the defendant and none of those included the license number either, according to the complaint.
- That’s the extent of the allegations. There is no mention of the concrete injury that the plaintiff has suffered as a result of the alleged omission of the license number.
The claims: The complaint alleges that the defendant’s actions “constitute numerous and multiple violations” of the FDCPA, including Section 1692f.
- The suit also alleges that the defendant’s “acts and omissions constitute number and multiple violations” of the RFDCPA. Section 1788.11 of the RFDCPA states, “No debt collector shall collect or attempt to collect a covered debt by… Sending written or digital communication to the person that does not display the California license number of the collector, if applicable, in at least 12-point type.”
- The suit claims that the plaintiff is entitled to damages under both statutes for “each and every” violation of the FDCPA and RFDCPA, according to the complaint.
