Listen to this article
Where a plaintiff has brought suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the plaintiff has established a plausible claim under the TCPA by alleging that the defendant used a prerecorded or artificial voice in its message to her, but the plaintiff fails to state a willful or knowing violation of the TCPA that would entitle her to treble damages.
“Kimberly Carr received an unwanted phone call from Credit Acceptance asking her ‘to make a payment or access account information.’ … But Carr is not a customer of Credit Acceptance …, nor did she give them permission to call her (id.). So Carr brought suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). … Credit Acceptance now moves to dismiss Carr’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim and/or to strike Carr’s class allegations. … For the reasons that follow, Credit Acceptance’s motion will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. …
“Courts require that plaintiffs provide sufficient details to support a TCPA claim for artificial or prerecorded calls. …
“Carr’s amended complaint provides sufficient detail such that she plausibly alleges that Credit Acceptance used a prerecorded or artificial voice in its message to her. …
“That is, Carr does not merely ‘parrot the statutory text or applicable case law.’ … She instead provides the date of the recording, the content of the recording, and the reasons why she believes the call was prerecorded or artificial. Carr also references other consumers who report receiving the same recording. …
“When viewed in the light most favorable to Carr, these allegations establish a plausible claim under the TCPA. …
“Carr’s claim for a willful or knowing violation fails for two reasons. First, Carr does not plausibly allege that Credit Acceptance had ‘actual knowledge’ before the March 4, 2025, call. …
“Moreover, the calls Carr says she received after putting Credit Acceptance on notice also cannot support a ‘willful’ or ‘knowing’ violation because Carr does not provide any allegations to support those calls—i.e., they could not even stand on their own as plausible claims. …
“That leaves Carr’s class allegations, which Credit Acceptance contends should be stricken under Rules 12(f) and 23. The Court disagrees. …
“For the foregoing reasons, Credit Acceptance’s motion to dismiss and/or strike (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
