Complaint Accuses Collector of Violating 7-in-7

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 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.

In what is believed to be one of the first cases to mention a violation of Regulation F’s 7-in-7 rule, a plaintiff has filed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit against a collector, accusing it of placing “countless” calls attempting to collect on an unpaid debt.

Under Regulation F, collectors are presumed to have violated the FDCPA if they place more than seven calls during a seven-day period attempting to collect on a debt. The “7-in-7” provision is applied per person per debt and only applies to phone calls, not emails, text messages, or other forms of communication.

A copy of the complaint. filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of California, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-01589.

Background: At some point this year, the plaintiff began receiving calls from a phone number, believed to be used by the defendant, attempting to collect on a debt. During one of the calls, the plaintiff was allegedly informed that the defendant was attempting to collect on an unpaid credit card debt. The plaintiff informed the representative that she would not pay the debt, because she had already paid it in full, and asked for the defendant to stop calling her.

  • The defendant continued to place calls to the plaintiff, according to the complaint, including more than seven during a seven-day period. The frequency of the calls were intended to “harass Plaintiff and squeeze sums of money from a consumer who had otherwise made clear that she did not want Defendant calling her again.”

Allegations: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692d(5), 1693e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA, as well as provisions of Regulation F and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Check Also

House Resolution Calls for Ban on Sale of Utility Debts, Restrictions on Credit Reporting

Buried inside a resolution introduced last week in the House of Representatives that seeks to …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.