Phone Calls From Capital One Violate TCPA, Lawsuit Claims

Phone calls from Capital One violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to a recent lawsuit against the bank.

Plaintiff Eric D. recently filed a lawsuit against Capital One Bank (USA) NA after allegedly receiving repeated phone calls from Capital One regarding a debt. Eric argues that the phone calls from Capital One are in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act (MRCPA).

Eric says he had a credit card through Capital One with which he made personal and household purchases. Eventually, he says he was unable to make his periodic payments when his account was due. Because of this, he allegedly started to receive repeated phone calls from Capital One in January 2018.

Eric allegedly received at least 27 phone calls from Capital One in the month of May 2018 and at least 17 phone calls from Capital One between June 1 and June 25, 2018. These calls were allegedly made to his personal cell phone.

The TCPA lawsuit says the phone calls from Capital One resulted in identical, seemingly prerecorded voice messages, informing Eric that they needed to speak to him regarding an “important personal business matter” and requesting that he return the call.

On June 25, Eric says he called Capital One in an attempt to negotiate the debt and to request that they stop calling. When he spoke to a representative, he says he was told that the company could “cease and desist” his account, meaning no more contact, but that the calls could not be “put on hold without an arrangement”.

Eric argues that this representation was unlawful and misleading and that he had the right to request that the calls cease without the company ceasing all communication and rendering future negotiation impossible.

The representative allegedly continued to insist that calls could not be stopped without a payment arrangement, despite Eric “unequivocally and clearly” revoking consent to receive phone calls from Capital One.

No resolution was reached during the phone call, Eric says, and the phone calls from Capital One allegedly continued.

On Aug. 2, he claims, he picked up the call and heard silence on the line and a delay, indicating the use of an automatic telephone dialer system. During the call, Eric asked if there was any indication that his phone number was a cell phone, to which the representative responded “again, we’re on an automatic dialer […] we have been trying to get ahold of you, sir.”

After his conversation in June, Eric allegedly received at least 78 automated phone calls from Capital One attempting to collect on his debt.

Eric argues the calls were allegedly harassing and meet the MRCPA requirements for “harassing, oppressive, or abusive method to collect a debt, including causing a telephone to ring […] repeatedly, continuously, or at unusual times or places which are known to be inconvenient to the debtor.” Eric also argues that the persistent use of an autodialing system, and calling after consent was revoked, violates the TCPA.

The TCPA lawsuit seeks treble damages, actual damages, statutory damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

The Capital One TCPA Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-01255-JTN-ESC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

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