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.
A collection operation is facing a lawsuit in federal court in California accusing it of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by allegedly placing more than 50 prerecorded voice calls to a consumer’s cell phone after her attorney sent a letter revoking consent and directing all communications to counsel.
The background: The defendant was retained to collect on a debt allegedly owed by the plaintiff that was incurred for personal and household expenses. The defendant allegedly began calling the plaintiff multiple times, sometimes twice per day and more than seven times in a single week, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff retained an attorney, who on March 9 submitted a cease-and-desist letter informing the defendant that the plaintiff was represented by counsel, demanding that all communications be directed to the attorney, and revoking any prior consent to contact the plaintiff using an automated dialing system, text messages, or prerecorded or artificial voice calls.
- The letter was sent through a third-party mailing service.
- The defendant allegedly called the plaintiff more than 50 times on her cell phone using prerecorded voice messages, often more than seven times per week, after the letter was sent, according to the complaint. The call counts are based on the plaintiff’s recollection as well as call records in her possession, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff described answering calls where there was a delay before any sound, calls where no one was on the line at first, and calls where an automated voice delivered what appeared to be an identical scripted message, all of which the complaint cites as indicators of a prerecorded voice.
- The calls left the plaintiff experiencing anxiety and irritability, and at times unable to calm down, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA by communicating with the plaintiff after learning she was represented by an attorney, and Section 1692d(5) by causing her phone to ring repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass.
- The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1788.14(c) of the Rosenthal Act for initiating communications after being notified in writing that the plaintiff was represented by counsel. It also invokes Section 1788.17, which incorporates the FDCPA into the state statute, and cites Regulation F’s presumption that placing more than seven calls in a seven-day period on a particular debt violates the FDCPA’s harassment provision.
- The complaint accuses the defendant of negligently and/or willfully violating the TCPA by calling the plaintiff’s cell phone using an artificial or prerecorded voice after consent was revoked.
