Class Action Lawsuit says Capital One Bank Robocalls Violate TCPA

A class action lawsuit says that Capital One Bank robocalls violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Cathleen L. says that she has received numerous calls from Capital One Bank that were made from a range of phone numbers. She says that these calls were made using an automatic telephone dialing systems, and that she received prerecorded voicemails from Capital One.

Cathleen claims that on or around June 4, 2018, she called Capital One and requested that they stop calling her. She alleges that despite her request for the calls stop, Capital One continued to place automated calls to her cellphone.

According to Cathleen, these calls and the messages left on her cellphone, are violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), designed to protect consumers from bothersome calls from businesses. Her lawsuit notes that the TCPA prohibits businesses from calling individuals who have not given prior express consent to be contacted, and says that she had not given her consent to be contacted.

Additionally, she says that when she called Capital One on or around June 4, 2018, the calls should have stopped because in that call she explicitly withdrew consent to receive calls. At that point, the company knew or should have known that they it was violating her request and violating the TCPA when contacting her with prerecorded messages after June 4, 2018. Cathleen says that “each call placed to [her] was made in knowing and/or willful violation of the TCPA.”

Additionally, the Capital One Bank robocalls lawsuit says that while the TCPA prohibits businesses from using automatic telephone dialers to make calls, Capital One did so when the bank contacted Cathleen. The lawsuit contends that use of these devices is prohibited under the TCPA because they enable businesses to contact many individuals at once by sending them messaging designed not specifically for them, but for large numbers of consumers.

Cathleen says that the TCPA also prohibits business from using prerecorded messaging when contacting people but the calls and messages she received from Capital One were prerecorded.

In the Capital One robocalls lawsuit, Cathleen argues that she was injured by Capital One because the calls she was “annoyed, harassed, and inconvenienced by [Capital One’s] continued calls. She says that she was also injured financially by the calls because she pays for her cellphone and cellphone plan, and her use and enjoyment of the phone and plan were diminished by having to field unwanted calls from Capital One.

Additionally, she argues that the calls were not placed for “emergency purposes,” which is allowed by law, and were placed to advertise services and products, which is prohibited by the TCPA.

Cathleen seeks awards that are stipulated by the TCPA, in the amount of $500 for each negligent violation of the TCPA, and higher damages, up to $1,500 for every TCPA violation determined to be knowing and willful on the part of Capital One Bank.

The Capital One Bank Robocalls Lawsuit is Case No. 4:18-cv-01493, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.

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