Is Citibank, NA entitled to call numbers that used to belong to its customers but no longer do? The complaint for this class action alleges that this is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), if the current owner of the number has not given Citibank permission to call it. The complaint alleges, “Citibank places more than one million calls each day regarding its credit card accounts.”
The class for this action is all persons and entities in the US (1) to whom Citibank placed a call about a credit card account (2) that was directed to a cell phone number that did not belong to a Citibank customer or authorized user, (3) using an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) between January 29, 2022 through the date of class certification.
The complaint quotes the TCPA as saying that it is unlawful “to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice … to any telephone number assigned to a paging device, cellular telephone service, … or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.”
But Citibank does make such calls, using an artificial or prerecorded voice, without the consent of the person called, the complaint alleges, because it makes calls with recorded voices to “wrong or reassigned cellular telephone numbers that do not belong to its accountholders or authorized users of its credit cards.”
The plaintiff in this case, Robert Newton, received calls and messages from Citibank with an artificial voice on his cell phone.
The complaint quotes the findings of an earlier case on the same subject as saying, “The principal question in this case is whether [the bank] can escape liability under the TCPA because the party it intended to call (its customer) had given consent to be called, even though the party it actually called had not. Consistent with every circuit to have addressed this issue, we hold that this argument fails under the TCPA’s text, most naturally read.”
The complaint details these as calls as occurring on March 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, April 2, 4, 5, and 6, 2022. These calls were not directed to Newton, the complaint says, and the name of a different customer was stated in at least one of the recorded messages. In the case of at least one of these calls, the complaint claims, Newton spoke to Citibank and Citibank told him that it was not looking for him but for someone else.
Newton says he does not have an account with Citibank or any other business relationship with it. The complaint alleges that Newton did not give Citibank his prior express consent to call his cell phone or to call him using an artificial or prerecorded voice.
Article Type: LawsuitTopic: Privacy
Most Recent Case Event
Citibank Recorded-Voice Cell Phone Calls to Non-Customers Complaint
April 11, 2022
Is Citibank, NA entitled to call numbers that used to belong to its customers but no longer do? The complaint for this class action alleges that this is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), if the current owner of the number has not given Citibank permission to call it. The complaint alleges, “Citibank places more than one million calls each day regarding its credit card accounts.”
Citibank Recorded-Voice Cell Phone Calls to Non-Customers ComplaintCase Event History
Citibank Recorded-Voice Cell Phone Calls to Non-Customers Complaint
April 11, 2022
Is Citibank, NA entitled to call numbers that used to belong to its customers but no longer do? The complaint for this class action alleges that this is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), if the current owner of the number has not given Citibank permission to call it. The complaint alleges, “Citibank places more than one million calls each day regarding its credit card accounts.”
Citibank Recorded-Voice Cell Phone Calls to Non-Customers Complaint