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.
I don’t want to make light out of anyone ever being sued, because it’s expensive and unpleasant, but this is a class action and I am the guy who likes to point out the plot holes and mistakes in movies and TV shows, which I will admit is very annoying most of the time. A collection operation is facing claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act for making more than seven calls in a seven-day period, but there are a couple of issues with the complaint.
The background: The plaintiff claims that the defendant placed 12 calls during the period of August 25, 2026 and August 31, 2026, according to the complaint. The first thing that astute readers will notice is that August 2026 is still two months in the distance from today.
- The complaint includes an exhibit that details calls allegedly made to the plaintiff by the defendant. There is one call on August 25, two on August 26, one on August 27, one on August 28, one on August 29, two on August 30, one on September 1, one on September 2, one on September 3, and one that looks like it was made on a date after September 3. Again, astute readers will note that the 12 calls occurred between August 25 and a date after September 3, which doesn’t match the period the calls were made in the complaint. That being said, there were eight calls made during the first seven-day period.
- The defendant’s attempted collection efforts forced the plaintiff to waste time and/or money evaluating his legal ramifications, according to the complaint.
The claims: The lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692d(5) of the FDCPA by engaging the plaintiff and other members of the class in a repeated or continuous telephone conversation intended to annoy, abuse, or harass. The complaint also references Section 1006.14 of Regulation F, which prohibits collectors from placing more than seven phone calls within seven consecutive days.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Section 559.72(7) of the FCCPA.
- The complaint seeks to include two subclasses of plaintiffs – one made up of consumers from across the United States who received more than seven phone calls from the defendant or someone on the defendant’s behalf over the course of a seven-day period in the 24 months preceding the filing of the complaint, and one made up of consumers living in Florida who received more than seven phone calls in a seven-day period during the preceding 24 months.
