Plaintiff Uses TCPA to Trigger FDCPA Claim Against Collector; Federal Judge Says No

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

The plaintiff in a case decided last week in federal district court argued that because a debt collection agency technically violated the TCPA in a call to the defendant, the company was also on the hook for an FDCPA claim under that law’s prohibition on “illegal acts.” But the judge disagreed, ruling in favor of the debt collector.

In Gomez v. Oxford Law in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the consumer plaintiff was contacted by the defendant debt collector one time regarding a debt. The collector left a prerecorded voicemail that gave full Foti-style disclaimers and was structured to minimize the possibility of third-party disclosure.

Most relevantly, the message began:

[P]lease hang up or disconnect. If you are Gomez, Vinouish please continue to listen to this message. There will now be a three second pause in this message. By continuing to listen to this message you acknowledge that you are Gomez, Vinouish. You should listen to this message in private as it contains personal and private information. There will now be a short pause in this message to allow you to listen to this message in private.

This is Casey Fox from Oxford Law, LLC. This communication is from a debt collector….

The message then gives the full mini-Miranda notification and instructs Gomez to call back to a specific number.

Gomez filed an FDCPA suit on the grounds that the message was a violation of the TCPA, and as such, an “illegal act” under section 1692e(5) of the FDCPA. The TCPA requires any entity using prerecorded messages to identify themselves “at the beginning” of the message. Because Oxford did not identify itself until the “seventh sentence of the message,” there is a potential TCPA violation.

Oxford, however, argued in a brief that debt collection calls are specifically exempt from that particular requirement of the TCPA under a 2005 clarifying ruling from the FCC. The FCC noted that collectors are not required to identify themselves upfront if doing so conflicts with other federal or state laws, specifically, the FDCPA.

But District Judge James Munley didn’t even need that rationale to grant Oxford’s motion to dismiss. He noted that the FDCPA claim fails for two reasons.

First, he wrote that “section 1692e(5)’s plain meaning applies only to threats to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. Here, the message is devoid of any threat.” He continued by noting what illegal actions the FDCPA is trying to prevent: “Defendant is not threatening to institute a debt collection lawsuit. Defendant is not threatening to garnish plaintiff’s wages. Rather, defendant is asking the plaintiff to call it back.”

He expanded thought under his second reason. “Second, even if the court were to construe section 1692e(5) to include both threats and illegal acts, defendant’s technical violation of the TCPA–the illegal act–is not the type of illegal act the FDCPA prohibits. Courts to have addressed this issue have all held that the illegal act pertained to the filing of a lawsuit.”

The plaintiff, or more probably the plaintiff’s attorney, was attempting to create a new precedent with the case and use the TCPA-FDCPA conflict to trigger FDCPA liability. Judge Munley actually gave the attorney a tip of his cap in his conclusion ordering the case closed: “While skillfully and artfully presented, plaintiff’s cause of action fails to establish a threat to take an action that cannot legally be taken under 1692e(5).”

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in Collection Laws and Regulations, Debt Collection, FDCPA, Featured Post, TCPA .

×
Subscribe to our email newsletters

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

  • avatar eileen corrice says:

    Still shaking my head. Hey, Gomez, wouldn’t it be easier to just pay if you owe?????

  • avatar Sisko says:

    It probably would be easier to pay to resolve the debt, but that’s not the point. Unfortunately, the FDCPA and other consumer protection laws are so convoluted that they have spawned both a serial litigation industry desperate to turn any technicality into a payday. I’m just pleasantly surprised that the plaintiff wasn’t able to get away with it.

  • avatar Jennifer Bellworthy says:

    What would be easier would be for debt collectors to follow the law. This is merely a silly little district court decision that makes no sense. So, according to this judge, debt collectors can’t threaten to violate the law, as that would be a violation of the FDCPA, but actually violating the law is acceptable. An opinion that only a desperate debt collector would understand….

Leave a Reply