Debtor Fights Back Against Citibank Harassing Phone Calls

A California woman has filed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit after allegedly receiving numerous Citibank harassing phone calls. In addition to the alleged Citibank harassing phone calls, she claims the financial institution had also conducted illegal call recording of conversations between her and the bank’s representatives.

Plaintiff Jenny H. alleges she began receiving Citibank harassing phone calls a little before 2017, after reportedly incurring a debt with the financial institution. According to the TCPA lawsuit, Jenny received numerous Citibank harassing phone calls that she believes were places using an automated dialing system.

Jenny says she requested for the calls to stop multiple times, even asking her representatives to send a letter expressly revoking any prior consent to contact. The letter specifically stated that “Client hereby revokes any prior express consent that may have been given to receive telephone calls, especially to Client’s cellular telephone.”

Even though Citibank received this letter, Jenny claims, she still received multiple Citibank harassing phone calls throughout April 2017. According to the TCPA lawsuit, she talked to a Citibank representative on April 13, 2017 after answering one of the many unwanted phone calls.

Jenny told the representative that they could not contact her. During this time, she alleges the phone conversation had been recorded by Citibank, without Jenny’s knowledge or consent.

Overview of TCPA and Call Recording Violations

Jenny claims this recording violates the California Privacy Act, which requires that all parties involved in a conversation must give consent before any recording of the conversation takes place. Call recording is common practice for many companies in California, often used for customer training and customer satisfaction purposes.

However these businesses must disclose that potential call recording may take place during the course of the conversation, which is often at the beginning of the call.

During the call in April 2017, Jenny says Citibank did not disclose or ask permission from Jenny before conducting the alleged call recording. Jenny states that she was upset and shocked at the company had recorded her on multiple occasions, without disclosure.

The other alleged Citibank harassing phone calls mentioned in the TCPA lawsuit had been made with an automated dialing system, she claims. She says she could tell by the fact that when she answered the phone, there was a pause before an artificial voice would respond.

Under the TCPA, it is illegal for a company to used automated dialing systems to randomly generate phone numbers and place calls to persons who have not consented to be called that way. Using a prerecorded or artificial voice announcement without consent is also restricted.

Companies must also honor a do-not-call registry for up to five years, to prevent unnecessary stress to consumers. Penalties for TCPA violations may reach as high as $1,500 per call for each violation deemed knowing or willful.

Jenny alleges willful TCPA violation with these Citibank harassing phone calls and violation of California call recording laws. Jenny is seeking statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 for each call recording violation.

This TCPA Lawsuit is Case No. 3:18-cv-00221-WQH-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Join a Free TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an unsolicited text message (text spam) or prerecorded voice message (robocall), you may be eligible for compensation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now