A summary of this week’s top cases. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
5/29/2020 11:00
Each week, ACA International’s Compliance Analysts Laura Dadd and Andrew Pavlik compile relevant case summaries for ACA members. Here is a recap of the cases this week. Members may also submit cases for consideration to our compliance team at [email protected].
Texas Court Finds an ATDS Must “Randomly or Sequentially Generate Numbers to be an ATDS”
The consumer registered his cell phone number with the National Do Not Call Registry. The consumer alleged that Facebook sent him 32 unsolicited text messages that encouraged him and three unknown parties to log on to facebook.com or provided verification codes assigned to those unknown third parties. The consumer states that Facebook used an ATDs that ignored his response to “STOP” after he received his first text. Although, the consumer has a Facebook account, he claims that he never provided his phone number or his express permission to be contacted by a text or phone call. The consumer described the text messages as "not personalized, contain[ing] random names, and always contain[ing] the same basic solicitation language, indicating a computer blasted advertisements to cell phone owners."
Court Finds Emailed Validation Notice Did Not Violate the FDCPA
In this case, a consumer sued a debt collector, alleging the collector violated the FDCPA by sending its initial validation notice and subsequent notices via email. The initial email communication included the standard FDCPA validation notice, including the following information: “If you notify us in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice that you dispute all or any portion of this debt, we will obtain verification of the debt . . . and send you a copy of such verification. . .’”
The consumer claimed the debt collector violated the FDCPA by sending the initial communication via e-mail without complying with the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN). The consumer also contended that the debt collector’s email violated § 1692g(a)(4) of the FDCPA because the email referred to “send[ing]” a copy of the verification of the debt, whereas § 1692g(a)(4) specifies that a copy of the verification will be “mailed” to the consumer. Thus, the consumer alleged the debt collector effectively changed the wording of the FDPCA by removing the word “mailed” and replacing it with the word send. Further, the consumer claimed the additional emails confused her and overshadowed the validation notice included in the initial communication.
Legal Action Notice Did Not Violate FDCPA
In this case, a consumer claimed an initial collection letter violated §§ 1692e(10), 1692e(2)(A), and 1692f of the FDCPA, because the letter contained a “Legal Action Notice” which inappropriately threatened imminent legal action if the consumer did not immediately pay the outstanding debt. The consumer further claimed the language of the letter violated § 1692g because the legal action notice overshadowed and contradicted the language of the validation notice by the inclusion of a phone number to call to avoid legal action.
Visit the Industry Advancement Fund webpage for more case summaries and news. ACA’s Daily Decision is powered by ACA’s Litigation Advocacy and Compliance Teams.
For more information on how the ACA Licensing staff can assist with your licensing needs, please contact us at [email protected] or call (952) 926-6547.