Bank of Missouri Phoned Plaintiff 100 Times Despite 7 Notices Revoking Her Consent
Kelli Davies brought suit against the Bank of Missouri for its “abusive and outrageous conduct in connection with debt collection activity,” in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, said her complaint…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Wednesday (docket 8:24-cv-01051) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. The bank received no fewer than seven notices revoking Davies’ consent to be contacted by prerecorded messages, yet it still called and otherwise contacted her more than 100 separate times, alleged the complaint. The TCPA was designed to prevent calls like those placed to the plaintiff, and to protect the privacy of citizens like her, it said. By enacting the TCPA, Congress “intended to give consumers a choice as to how corporate entities may contact them and to prevent the nuisance associated with automated or prerecorded calls,” it said. A California resident, Davies opened a Fortiva credit card account issued by the Bank of Missouri sometime in early 2021. The bank has been attempting to collect on a debt that originated from monetary credit that was extended primarily for personal, family or household purposes, and was therefore a consumer credit transaction within the meaning of the Rosenthal Act, said the complaint. Davies eventually became financially unable to continue making the monthly payments on her account, and the bank began contacting her “to inquire about the status of the account and to collect on the payments that were no longer being made,” it said. Davies sent the bank her first notice in May 2023 withdrawing her consent to be contacted on her cellphone, and her revocation notices to the bank continued through December, but so did the bank’s collection calls, it said. The bank would call the plaintiff numerous times each day demanding payment on the account, it said. Davies initiated a complaint against the bank with the American Arbitration Association on Feb. 21, but the bank failed to timely pay the arbitration fees as required under California law, said the complaint. The plaintiff’s counsel confirmed with the AAA on May 8 that Davies was electing to pursue her claims in district court as a result of the bank’s failure to timely pay the arbitration fees “and in order to clear up any ambiguity regarding the lack of payment of the initial fees,” it said.