Montgomery Ward Class Action Says Online Retailer Violated TCPA

Montgomery Ward faces a putative class action lawsuit accusing the online retailer of placing harassing robocalls to cell phones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Lead plaintiff Justin Boyko says Montgomery Ward used an automatic telephone dialing system to place numerous phone calls regarding an alleged debt, starting in April 2016 and continuing to the present day.

The Montgomery Ward class action lawsuit was removed to federal court in Pennsylvania last week.

The lawsuit claims that Montgomery Ward used robocalling as a way to harass Boyko about an overdue bill.

“At no point did Plaintiff ever give permission, implied or express, to Defendant, to contact Plaintiff’s mobile telephone period, much less via an automatic telephone dialing system,” stated the plaintiff. “Without such permission from the Plaintiff, Defendant’s actions are directly violative of [the TCPA].”

According to the complaint, the plaintiff had to pay for all incoming messages, and Montgomery Ward caused a number of unsolicited voice mails to be left on Boyko’s cell phone.

“This unsolicited voice mail message placed to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone was to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls,” the Montgomery Ward TCPA class action lawsuit states.

Montgomery Ward acted in a “false, deceptive, misleading and unfair manner by causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number,” the plaintiff alleges.

Further, the class action claims Montgomery Ward “knew or should have known” it was violating the TCPA, as well as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the Montgomery Ward class action lawsuit, the FDCPA says “[a] debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.” Further by “[c]ausing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.”

Montgomery Ward “deliberately flouted and violated Federal law,” claims the plaintiff, calling Montgomery Ward a “bill collector” whose actions were both “extreme” and “outrageous.”

As a “bill collector,” continued the plaintiff, Montgomery Ward’s actions were intentional because “it has at least prescriptive knowledge of governing Federal statutes.”

Alternatively, Montgomery Ward’s action were at a minimum “reckless, in that it chose to ignore … statutes, as well as [fail] to verify the identity of the [p]laintiff.”

The plaintiff is seeking damages for time wasted answering robocalls as well as for damage to her reputation. She is also seeking out-of-pocket expenses, physical, emotional and mental pain and anguish.

The plaintiff is represented by Joseph T Sucec, Esq.

The Montgomery Ward TCPA Class Action Lawsuit is Boyko v. Montgomery Ward Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02211, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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