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.
When they talk about big things coming in little packages, they might have had this lawsuit in mind. There isn’t much in the way of allegations — just a single text message, but a collection operation is facing a class-action lawsuit in a California federal court alleging it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because that one message did not identify the sender as a debt collector and did not display the collector’s California license number.
This is not the first time that a class-action making this kind of allegation has been filed in this particular jurisdiction.
The background: The dispute stems from a single text message the defendant sent while attempting to collect a consumer debt, according to the complaint.
- The debt was allegedly incurred for personal, family, or household purposes.
- The defendant’s first communication was a text message sent to the plaintiff’s personal cell phone, according to the complaint.
- The message identified the sender by name, told the plaintiff the account was being reviewed and that action might be taken soon, and directed the plaintiff to a payment portal or phone number, closing with an instruction to reply to opt out, according to the complaint.
- The message did not state that it was from a debt collector, that the defendant was attempting to collect a debt, or that any information obtained would be used for that purpose, according to the complaint.
- The message also did not display the defendant’s California debt collection license number, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint brings three counts across two statutes.
- The defendant is accused of violating Section 1692e(11) of the FDCPA for failing to disclose in the initial written communication that the message was from a debt collector attempting to collect a debt and that information obtained would be used for that purpose, along with Sections 1788.17 of the Rosenthal Act, which incorporates Section 1692e(11), based on the same omission, and Section 1788.11(f) for sending a digital communication that did not display the collector’s California license number in at least 12-point type.
The suit proposes three classes: a nationwide FDCPA class, and two California-only classes tied to the Rosenthal disclosure and license claims.
