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 claim that the industry is seeing more and more of relates to the timeliness of honoring cease requests or opt-out submissions from consumers not being processed fast enough and this lawsuit serves as a possible example of that, especially when coming in from different communication channels from the original message. A collection operation is being accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F by continuing to attempt to collect on a debt after the plaintiff communicated his intention not to repay it in a text message to the defendant. The plaintiff is demanding $6,500 from the defendant for the alleged violations.
The background: Last month, on October 23, the plaintiff received a text message from the defendant, which identified the defendant as a debt collector and indicated that it was attempting to collect on an unpaid debt owed to Charter Spectrum. The defendant also indicated that the plaintiff could reach out if he had any questions or concerns, according to the complaint.
- That same day, the plaintiff allegedly sent an email to the defendant stating he had no intention of paying the debts, specifically writing, “I refuse to pay.” There is no mention of how the plaintiff obtained the email address that he used or if it was provided by the defendant.
- The next day, the plaintiff allegedly received a call from the defendant while the plaintiff was at work to discuss the outstanding debt.
- The defendant allegedly made another call the day after that to the plaintiff about the debt in question.
- The defendant is being accused of ignoring the refusal to pay that the plaintiff submitted via email, which led to the plaintiff’s privacy being invaded, as well as him being personally embarrassed, losing productive time, suffering emotional distress, frustration, anger, and humiliation among other negative emotions, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by failing to cease collection on a debt after receiving written notice that the plaintiff refused to pay the debt in question.
- The defendant is also accused of violating Section 1006.6(c)(1) of Regulation F for the same reason.
