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 [email protected] 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 collector is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit for calling the family members of the plaintiff and leaving messages that were used as “illegal collection dog whistles” to allegedly coerce the plaintiff into paying the debt.
The Background: Over the course of a 30-day period last September and October, the defendant allegedly left 14 voicemail messages on phone numbers owned by the plaintiff, his spouse, his brother, and his father-in-law, all using roughly the same language.
- The messages would state, “Given the nature of this matter and for your privacy, I cannot share details on your voicemail” or words to that effect, according to the complaint. One voicemail left for the plaintiff’s brother also stated that the defendant was “now handling one of your personal business matters.”
- The plaintiff has not lived with his brother in more than 30 years and now lived with his father-in-law in more than 18 years, according to the complaint.
- The messages were left with the intention of making sure the plaintiff knew he owed money to the defendant, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff has been so embarrassed and humiliated that he has considered filing for bankruptcy protection, according to the complaint.
The Claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692d(3), 1692d(5), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(7), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f, 1692f(1) of the FDCPA, as well as violating Regulation F and state law in Minnesota, where the complaint was filed.
- The complaint also accuses the collector of not providing notices required under Section 1692g of the FDCPA.