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.
Revoking consent to be contacted is not always black-or-white. In certain circumstances, a revocation from a consumer is channel-specific, meaning the collector is no longer able to communicate with the consumer in one channel, but can communicate in other channels. A collection operation is facing a class-action lawsuit in Florida alleging it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it placed two phone calls after the plaintiff revoked consent to be contacted via text message.
The background: The consumer received a text message from the defendant last October. The message invited the consumer to review the balance on the account by clicking a link to a portal.
- The consumer replied to the text message with, “Stop”.
- The defendant replied to the message, saying, “You’ve successfully opted out of [defendant] notifications. You won’t receive further text updates from us. If you wish to opt back in or need assistance, call us at [number].”
- On December 2 and December 5, it appears as though the defendant placed phone calls to the plaintiff. The complaint refers to the attempts as “communications,” but screenshots attached as exhibits make it appear as though the communications were calls.
- The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated the FDCPA and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by attempting to contact the plaintiff after the plaintiff had had requested the defendant stop contacting him.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by communicating with the plaintiff after the plaintiff had requested that the defendant cease contacting him.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating the FCCPA’s provision against “willfully engag[ing] in conduct which can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the debtor or any member of his family.”
- The suit seeks to include two classes of potential plaintiffs: an FDCPA class and an FCCPA class. Both classes seek to include anyone who received a communication from the defendant after the consumer had requested the defendant cease communication, with the only difference being the FCCPA class limited to residents of Florida and the FDCPA class including consumer nationwide.
