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.
What constitutes a request to cease communication today? And what is a collector allowed to respond if and when a consumer revokes consent? Both of those questions are being tested by a plaintiff, who has accused a collection operation of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in a pro se lawsuit because of how it responded to a text message the plaintiff sent where he allegedly revoked consent to be contacted.
The background: Back in February, the plaintiff received a text message from the defendant, seeking to collect on an unpaid utility debt. The message identified the defendant as a debt collector, included a disclosure that the message was an attempt to collect on a debt, shared a link that the plaintiff could click on to resolve the debt, and provided instructions to reply “STOP” to opt out of further communication, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff responded the same day with a message, “I am homeless I will not pay.”, according to the complaint.
- Three days later, the plaintiff received another text message from the defendant, which said, “We have not had a response regarding a debt of …” and included the amount and identity of the creditor, as well as a link to resolve the account online and a phone number that the plaintiff could call.
- The plaintiff claims that his message to the defendant was a “clear and unambiguous written notice that” he refused to pay the debt, and the defendant’s response was not one of the types of messages that are allowed to be sent under the FDCPA when a consumer revokes consent to be contacted. On top of that, the plaintiff noted, the defendant stating it had “not had a response” indicates that the defendant “either failed to process Plaintiff’s written refusal or failed to maintain procedures sufficient to prevent further collection contact after receiving” the message, according to the complaint.
- The defendant’s actions cause the plaintiff to suffer “annoyance, disruption, invasion of privacy, emotional distress, and loss of time addressing the unlawful communication,” according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by communicating with the plaintiff after receiving a written refusal to pay the debt.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692e(11) of the FDCPA by failing to disclose it was a debt collector in the second message it sent to the plaintiff.
