Class Action Accuses Defendant of Violating FDCPA, TCPA, Reg F For Making Too Many Calls

The database maintained by Jack Gordon and the team at WebRecon has yielded yet another Regulation F lawsuit, this one a class-action against a company accused of not only violating Reg F, but also the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making at least 47 phone calls to an individual’s cell phone — including 22 in one seven-day period alone — without first obtaining the individual’s consent to contact him on his cell phone.

A copy of the complaint in the case of Vespo v. Bass & Associates can be accessed by clicking here.

The defendant received a demonstration for a new vacuum cleaner, a Kirby, but declined to buy the machine. “Shortly thereafter,” according to the complaint, the plaintiff started receiving calls from the defendant seeking to collect on an unpaid debt as a result of his alleged purchase of a vacuum cleaner. Two years later, the plaintiff received a new set of calls about the debt, after it was allegedly purchased by the defendant. The plaintiff claims to have never provided his cell phone number to the defendant, and when contacted by the defendant, “requested that his name and phone number be removed from Defendant’s calling list as he does not owe the subject debt.”

Starting in November 2021, the defendant allegedly placed 47 pre-recorded calls to the plaintiff, including 22 during a seven-day period in January 2022, after Regulation F went into effect.

The plaintiff’s class-action suit accuses the defendant of violating Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by making calls to the plaintiff’s cell phone using an automated telephone dialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded voice without the plaintiff’s consent. It also accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692c(a)(1), 1692d(5), 1692e, 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA, and Section 1006.14 of Regulation F. The plaintiff is seeking to include anyone who received a call on his or her cell phone from the defendant using an artificial or pre-recorded voice without first obtaining the individual’s consent.

Check Also

Judge Grants MTD for Lack of Standing in FDCPA Case Over Letter Vendor, Dispute Status

Making sure to explain in specific detail why the plaintiff lacked standing to sue, a …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

X