The TCPA prohibits calls to a cell phone without the consumer’s consent. What happens if a consumer initially provided consent when signing up for a credit card, but later wishes to stop the calls.
The Court said In Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank
“the TCPA makes it unlawful for “any person,” absent the “prior express consent of the called party,” to make any non-emergency call “using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice … to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone service [.]” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). Anyone who violates the TCPA may be sued in federal court for “actual monetary loss” or $500 in damages for each violation, “whichever is greater.” § 227(b)(3)(B). Treble damages are also available for knowing or willful violations. § 227(b)(3) (concluding language). Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank, 866 F.3d 1273, (11th Cir. 2017)
The consumer “applied for, and was issued, a credit card by Comenity Bank in 2012 and in her application provided her cellular phone number to Comenity.” When she failed to make required payments on her credit-card account, Comenity placed calls to her cellular phone concerning the delinquency using an automated telephone dialing system. The Bank said she was two payments behind on her account, and asked if she could make a payment. In response, she said the following:
Unfortunately I can’t afford to pay [my past due payment] right now. And if you guys cannot call me, like, in the morning and during the work day, because I’m working, and I can’t really be talking about these things while I’m at work. My phone’s ringing off the hook with you guys calling me. Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank, 866 F.3d 1273, 1275 (11th Cir. 2017).
The Court reversed the dismissal of her claim finding a question about consent for the repeated calls. If you do not wish to receive repeated calls from a creditor, consider telling them that.
Call (973) 598-1980 for a Free Consultation on Your Debt Defense or Robocall Problem