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.
Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act there are essentially two different types of calls — telemarketing calls and transactional/information calls. Calls that attempt to collect on an unpaid debt are not usually considered telemarketing calls — they are directed toward a specific individual in a specific circumstance. A consumer in California, though, has filed a class-action lawsuit and accused what appears to be a collection operation of violating the TCPA by sending two telemarketing text messages to her cell phone that were allegedly received outside of the window that these types of calls are allowed to be made.
The background: On March 21 at 11:29pm and April 19 at 9:35pm the plaintiff received text messages from the defendant. The first text message stated, “This message is from [defendant] (a debt collector) regarding Infinity Insurance Company. As of 3/20/26, your past-due balance remains unpaid. Please call [phone number] or visit [portal] to self-service. Reference file [number]. To opt out, reply STOP.”
- The second text relayed largely the same message, although it offered to settle the balance for less than the full amount and included a different phone number and portal address.
- The screenshots attached in the complaint show snippets of other messages, but they were not referenced in the suit.
- The plaintiff added her number to the Do Not Call Registry on March 30, 2026, nine days after receiving the first message referenced in the complaint.
- According to the complaint, “The subject messages were not informational or transactional. Their purpose was to advertise, promote, and encourage the purchase of Defendant’s goods and/or services.”
The claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating the TCPA by calling before 8:00am or after 9:00pm in the local party’s location and for calling a number that had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.
- The suit seeks to include anyone else who received a call outside of the TCPA’s allowed window and whose number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days prior to receiving a a text message solicitation from the defendant.
