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.
There are times where the complaints that are filed against companies in the credit and collection industry read like dimestore detective novels, with salacious allegations and tales of deception. I will say at the outset that this is definitely not one of those complaint. This is a short, single-count lawsuit filed in California state court, and it comes down to one detail: a text message that allegedly did not display the defendant’s California debt collection license number. For collectors operating in California, it is a reminder that the state’s licensing requirements come with disclosure obligations that apply to every written and digital communication, texts included.
The background: On or about June 2, the defendant sent the plaintiff a text message attempting to collect on an unpaid debt, according to the complaint.
- The message informed the plaintiff that there were “new discounts & offers” available on the account, included a link to the defendant’s payment portal, identified the defendant as a debt collector, and instructed the plaintiff to reply “STOP” to opt out of future messages.
- A screenshot attached as an exhibit to the complaint shows an earlier message from the same number, which warned that if the account could not be resolved, it would be returned to the current creditor for review to see whether it met the criteria for referral to a law firm in the plaintiff’s state. That earlier message, however, is not the communication at issue in the complaint.
- The text message that is at issue did not display the defendant’s California debt collection license number, according to the complaint.
- The suit was filed as a limited civil case, with the amount demanded not to exceed $12,500.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1788.11(f) of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits a debt collector from sending a written or digital communication that does not display the collector’s California license number, if applicable, in at least 12-point type.
The plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the defendant’s conduct violated the statute, statutory damages, an injunction against future violations with respect to the plaintiff, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The count itself is labeled as a violation of Section 1788.17 of the Rosenthal Act, which is the provision that incorporates the requirements of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but the substance of the count and the relief requested are both tied to Section 1788.11(f).
