The complaint begins by asserting, “Comenity remains one of, if the not the most abusive, robodialer in the country.” It is referring to Comenity Bank, which it claims “blasted Plaintiff’s cellular telephone with over 379 calls … in the span of two months” for an account that it claims was only one month delinquent. The complaint brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The class for this action is
- All persons in the US
- To whose cell phone numbers
- Comenity placed a non-emergency call
- Using substantially the same system(s) that were used to call the plaintiff in this case,
- From June 21, 2015 on,
- Where Comenity did not have express consent to call the cell phone numbers.
Comenity recently agreed to pay $8,475,000 to settle another TCPA class action, Carrie Couser v. Comenity Bank. The settlement carved out an exception for wrong-number calls. While “wrong number” calls are at issue in this case, the complaint says, “these are not really ‘wrong’ numbers, they are in fact the exact right number Comenity intended to call.”
Plaintiff Christopher Dmytriw lives in Florida. In 2018, he fell a month behind on his payments on a debt. Beginning on August 12, 2018, Comenity “blasted [Dmytriw’s] cellular telephone with over 379 calls by the use of an ATDS [automatic telephone dialing system] or a pre-recorded or artificial voice in the span of two months.”
On October 2, the complaint says, Dmytriw answered a call from Comenity and demanded that it stop calling him. According to the complaint, he answered two more times that day and again demanded that Comenity stop calling him. Those were only three out of fifteen calls he received from the bank that day. This request to stop the calls expressly revokes any consent Comenity may have believed it had to make robocalls to him.
But that was not the end of it. Comenity “continued their egregious campaign of robocalls to [DMytriw’s] home phone number … a total of 768 times during the same period.” The complaint says there were 690 calls to his home phone number between October 4 to October 30, 2018.
The complaint alleges that Comenity recorded at least one conversation with Dmytriw.
The complaint further alleges that “Comenity has a corporate policy of using blanket phrases in their account notes in order to continue calling alleged debtors.”
What does this mean? “Comenity will mark down phrases such as ‘wrong number’, ‘third party no message left’, ‘Online refusal’ or even ‘online promise’ when the corresponding recording will have instructions to ‘stop’ calling, known as revocation.” Also, Comenity “has a habit of producing account notes with zero indication of revocation when alleged debtors revoke consent to be called, claim to be harassed, or even threaten legal action.”
Article Type: LawsuitTopic: Consumer
Most Recent Case Event
Lawgix Satisfied Debt and False Info Minnesota FDCPA Complaint
June 21, 2019
The complaint for this class action alleges that Lawgix Lawyers, LLC, Lawgix, Inc., and attorney Michael D. Johnson provided false contact information in legal documentation. US Bank, NA is also named as a defendant, because the contact number provided went to US Bank and because the filings concerned a debt with US Bank that had already been satisfied. The complaint brings its allegations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
us_bank_lawgix_fdcpa_complaint.pdfCase Event History
Comenity Bank 700 Calls at One Month in Arrears TCPA Complaint
June 21, 2019
The complaint begins by asserting, “Comenity remains one of, if the not the most abusive, robodialer in the country.” It is referring to Comenity Bank, which it claims “blasted Plaintiff’s cellular telephone with over 379 calls … in the span of two months” for an account that it claims was only one month delinquent. The complaint brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
comenity_bank_robo-call_complaint.pdfLawgix Satisfied Debt and False Info Minnesota FDCPA Complaint
June 21, 2019
The complaint for this class action alleges that Lawgix Lawyers, LLC, Lawgix, Inc., and attorney Michael D. Johnson provided false contact information in legal documentation. US Bank, NA is also named as a defendant, because the contact number provided went to US Bank and because the filings concerned a debt with US Bank that had already been satisfied. The complaint brings its allegations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
us_bank_lawgix_fdcpa_complaint.pdf