GC Services TCPA Lawsuit Seeks Class Certification

A San Diego woman has filed a GC Services TCPA lawsuit claiming the call center masked robocalls to her and violated federal law by continuously calling her phone.

Plaintiff Tiffany Cahill is seeking to represent a Class of similarly situated individuals who also experienced similar calls from GC Services.

GC Services is a nationwide call center. According to this GC Services TCPA lawsuit, it is the “largest privately-held outsourcing provider of call center management and collection agency services in North America.”

GC Services offers their call center agents to different creditors. This GC Services TCPA lawsuit claims that they regularly make autodialed phone calls with pre-recorded messages. Cahill claims they do this to recover debts.

Cahill alleges that GC Services called her phone nearly 40 times between Oct. 24, 2016 and Jan. 24, 2017, using an automated telephone dialing system. She says that she never provided her phone number to the defendant and that she never authorized them to make calls to her.

Cahill lives in San Diego with the area code 619. She says that she received 39 calls from GC Services masked with a 619 area code. GC Services is based in Houston, Tex., which has a 713 area code.

This GC Services TCPA lawsuit alleges that the calling company used an autodialer not only to call her, but also to “spoof” the calling number to come from a different phone number. Cahill claims that many collection companies do this to trick people in picking up the phone from an unknown number. In essence, if a person sees an unknown number coming through on their phone, but it is from their own area code, they may be more likely to pick up that call.

She believes that these calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in many ways. The TCPA protects persons from unwanted phone calls when they have not given consent for a caller to call them.

The ways in which Cahill alleges that GC Services violated the federal law spelled out in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act include:

• An automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) was used
• This ATDS was able to place calls and store phone numbers and did not need human intervention.
• She did not give consent for her phone number to be used.
• The calls were not made for emergency purposes.

Cahill says she incurred charges for incoming calls and was frustrated and distressed because of the phone calls. She believes she suffered an invasion of privacy because of GC Services phone calls to her, and she wants to stop GC Services from invading the privacy of others as well.

Cahill is asking that GC Services pay her for damages. She proposes to represent a Class of others that have received similar, annoying phone calls. Her complaint sets out the following causes of action: negligent violations of the TCPA and knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA.

The GC Services TCPA Lawsuit is Cahill vs. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 3:17-­cv-­01308, in 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