An Alorica Class Action Lawsuit Against Debt Collectors Leads to a Prerecorded Voice Message Lawsuit
About Alorica Class Action Lawsuit. There was a lawsuit in which the plaintiffs, who were represented by an individual or a company called “John Doe” were able to file a class action lawsuit of $75 million against defendant “E.G.” and several specialty companies who supplied equipment used in the ongoing effort to create an artificial cavity for high pressure refrigeration.
According to information provided to the court, “On or about November 13, 2021, plaintiff’s counsel advised defendant defendants that they were violating the plaintiff’s rights under the FDCPA, namely the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), by sending repeated and persistent communications to plaintiff regarding a debt owed to the defendant.
” The complaint further stated that the communications from defendant “were so frequent and irritating that it caused [plaintiff’s attorney] to become worried about the defendant’s personal safety.” On or about April 4, 2021, a letter was sent to defendant from “Jody,” the collection agency, stating that Jody would be contacting the individual routinely in order to collect a debt from him. Several days later, plaintiff received another letter from Jody, stating that she could not locate any such debt. It also was reported that Jody intended to continue her efforts to contact the individual until either defendant promised to resolve the matter or Jody received a monetary settlement from the defendant.
Apparently, plaintiff was not happy with this development.
Attorneys representing Jody informed plaintiff’s attorney that they planned to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against defendant for violating the provisions of the FDCPA. On or about July 14, plaintiff received yet another phone call from Jody, telling plaintiff’s attorney that they would file a complaint in “virtually no time.”
Shortly thereafter, the foregoing phone calls were followed by numerous telephone harassment calls from Jody to plaintiff’s attorney which caused unnecessary stress and caused the two parties to cancel all further communications. At this point in time, plaintiff had fallen somewhat behind in his attempt to collect the debt. He had fallen so far behind that at the time the defendants had indicated that they would move forward without any more communications from him, despite his repeated attempts to collect the debt.
Although the above situations are indicative of a problematic relationship between Jody and plaintiff, there is still cause for concern.
In light of the fact that many states have enacted statutes that permit debt collectors to engage in any conduct that they deem appropriate to collect a debt, including the use of intimidation, threats of violence, and other surreptitious collection efforts, many wonder if there is sufficient justification to protect consumers from abusive and harassing phone calls. After all, the advent of modern technology has made it possible for debt collectors to use technological means to bypass traditional methods of communication. With the advent of caller ID, debt collectors are able to identify and pursue individuals who fail to pay their debts in a completely legal manner.
Unfortunately, in these technologically savvy days, it is often difficult for individuals to determine the legality of the conduct of debt collectors. Because of the nature of the internet and the ability to communicate with other individuals using personal computers, many question whether the use of prerecorded voice messages constitutes illegal harassment or simply a new way of collecting overdue payments. According to California Attorney General John Van de Kamp, “There is definitely a question of First Amendment issues here… that goes to the very core of our democracy – the right to speak freely and to seek meaningful dialogue when we disagree. Telephone harassment is never acceptable.”