Quest TCPA Lawsuit Alleges Unsolicited Debt Collection Calls

A woman says that she received a barrage of unsolicited phone calls in the Quest TCPA class action lawsuit – a lawsuit that just recently survived a motion to dismiss.

Lead plaintiff, Judy Wilson, alleged in the Quest TCPA class action lawsuit that the telecommunications company made debt collection calls to her and other consumers. However, alleges the plaintiff, Quest Diagnostics did so without obtaining permission and also used an automatic dialing system, or autodialer, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The TCPA is a federal law that was enacted by Congress to protect consumers from relentless telemarketers. The law requires telemarketers to obtain express consent from the call recipient prior to making a phone call to advertise goods or services, or even in an attempt to collect on a debt. In addition, the TCPA restricts the use of automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS), or machines that randomly generate numbers to call, as well as the use of pre recorded messages.

The TCPA carries steep fines of up to $1,500 per violation. Wilson alleges in her class action lawsuit that Quest violated the TCPA each time the company made unsolicited debt collection calls to consumers using an autodialer or ATDS.

The company fought the Quest TCPA class action lawsuit, claiming that the plaintiff had not established at they used as autodialer. However, U.S. District Court Judge William Martini rejected Quest’s assertion, finding that the class action lawsuit had established sufficient facts to proceed with the litigation.

“Dead air after answering the phone is indicative that the caller used a predictive dialer,” said the judge in his order. “Plaintiff further alleges Quest called her ‘to collect a debt owed by someone other than plaintiff.’ Thus, it is plausible that Quest used a predictive dialer to call plaintiff. And since a predictive dialer can qualify as an ATDS under the TCPA, Plaintiff adequately states a claim for relief.”

The judge also rejected Quest’s contention that the particular technology it used to make the alleged unsolicited debt collection calls did not qualify as a predictive dialer under the TCPA. Quest deemed the technology a “predictive dialer,” however, the judge found that the technology fit within federal interpretations of ADTS technology within the TCPA.

“[A] predictive dialer qualifies as an ATDS so long as it has ‘the [present] capacity to dial numbers without human intervention,'” noted the judge’s order. Further, the judge cited a ruling by the Federal Communications Commission that autodialers include “equipment that dials numbers and, when certain computer software is attached, also assists telemarketers in predicting when a sales agent will be available to take calls.”

The issue is not entirely resolved for the Quest TCPA class action lawsuit, however. The judge noted that his findings, at this point in the litigation, only leave the allegations open to further examination of the evidence as the lawsuit proceeds.

The Quest TCPA Class Action Lawsuit is Wilson v. Quest Diagnostics Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18­cv­11960, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

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