The lead plaintiff in the suit claims she incurred a debt owed to Bank of America sometime before April 2018. She then allegedly hired an attorney, who drafted a cease and desist letter to the defendant on April 30th of that year explicitly revoking any permission that may have been given by the plaintiff to receive telephone calls. The case claims, however, that the defendant continued to call the plaintiff in spite of the letter.
“Despite this unequivocal, explicit admonishment,” the case states, “defendant continuously called plaintiff’s cellular telephone at least six times between April 30, 2018 and June 7, 2018.”
The plaintiff’s attorney then sent another cease and desist letter in June, the lawsuit says, to which the defendant responded by calling at least 13 more times. According to the case, these calls were generally made using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and featured a pre-recorded, artificial voice.
Under the TCPA, agencies need prior express written consent to make telemarketing calls using an auto-dialer or pre-recorded or artificial voice. The case claims that the plaintiff never knowingly gave express written consent to receive such calls, and even if she did, the attorney’s first letter revoked any consent that may have been given; thus, all subsequent calls were made illegally, the lawsuit says.
The suit represents a putative class encompassing everyone in the United States who received a call from the defendant that was either auto-dialed or featured a prerecorded voice within the past four years and seeks $1,500 in compensation for each willful violation of the TCPA.