Mon, 09/23/2019 - 13:50
The plaintiff in Johnson v. Capital One Servs., No. 18-cv-62058, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159633 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2019) attempted a novel technique in order to provoke Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations from the defendant: trying to revoke consent by speaking with a fake British accent and telling the defendant's agent that they were calling a "wrong number."
In addition to the fake accent gambit, the plaintiff tried to claim that she revoked her consent in September 2017 because she could not make her payments in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma. However, records show that she did not receive any calls from the defendant in September 2017. She also asked the agent if they were using an autodialer to contact her, a question to which the agent responded in the affirmative. The court found that this did not constitute proof of the use of an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) as defined in the TCPA. The court also did not find the plaintiff's claim that she heard a click and pause to be sufficient evidence of the use of an ATDS.
So, while this plaintiff may have been quite "chuffed" at her attempts to manufacture TCPA violations, the court did not find it to be "hunky dory." The court said, "cheerio" to this "cheeky" strategy, dismissing the plaintiff's quite "barmy" case. Toodle pip, TCPA case!