Editor's note: This article—with the exception of the iA Perspective below—is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved. 

Really quick one for you.

TCPAWorld is so topsy-turvey that it is good to level set and remind ourselves of some basics once in a while.

Here’s some bedrock—debt collectors can call numbers supplied by the consumer to an original creditor as part of a credit transaction. The consent flows “downhill” in that instance, automatically. That’s been the case since 2009, but here’s a ruling from yesterday that says it again: Amadasun v. DataSearch, Inc., (W.D. Tx. October 6, 2020).

Things can get dicey where the consumer switches number or the collector doesn’t have access to the original data supplied to the creditor, so watch out if that's the case.

insideARM Perspective

To provide some color on the Amadasun case, it was brought by a pro se plaintiff in Texas. Below is the summary of the decision from the iA Case Law Tracker, which provides detailed, crisp summaries of all industry-related court decisions:

Consumer alleged—among other things—that defendant placed multiple calls after consent was revoked, left voicemails without a mini-Miranda, failed to send the validation notice, attempted to collect a debt not authorized by a contract, and engaged in false or misleading conduct. Defendant moved for summary judgment and court granted. Court found consumer provided little evidence that disputed the evidence offered by defendant. Court found that none of the alleged conduct rose to the level of unfair or unconscionable and there was no showing of harassment or abuse because defendant's call log showed that it only placed one call a day, at reasonable hours, usually several days apart from any other call. Court held consumer’s state law claim failed on the same grounds as the FDCPA claims. Consumer’s TCPA claim fails because defendant’s evidence that it had consumer’s consent to call—which consumer provided to the creditor and passed to defendant—went uncontroverted.

Imagine reading that rather than an 11-page-long court decision! This is how the iA Case Law Tracker helps you become an industry case law pro in less time than it takes to get your morning coffee. You can sign up for a free trial here.

Back to Amadasun. To quote the court's decision:

DataSearch offers uncontroverted summary-judgment evidence that it had Plaintiff’s consent to call him on his cellular phone because it called the number provided by the original creditor, which was provided by Plaintiff. . . DataSearch asserts that Plaintiff never revoked his consent, and thus his claim fails as a matter of law. Plaintiff provides no controverting evidence to create a material fact issue. 

Looks like this decision came down the way it did because plaintiff did not grasp the rules of civil procedure, which require a party to respond to allegations and/or defenses (or else they are deemed waived). Either way, it never hurts to have a court decide that consent passed from a creditor to a debt collector.


Next Article: Washington, DC Extends its COVID-19 Collection Ban