Regulation reveals how expensive TCPA is compared to other consumer laws like FDCPA


Another. Ouch. Dear.

Looking at the huge result of the class action settlement filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, we can see a trend. In Sheean v. Converged Outsourcing, Inc., Case No: 2: 18-cv-11532-GCS-RSW, 2019 US Dist. LEXIS 197446, the named plaintiff, Michael Sheehan, claimed that he had received debt collection calls from Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. (“Convergent”) via an ATDS or pre-recorded voice, which were directed to other persons . He alleged that he asked Convergent to stop calling him, however, Convergent reportedly continued to call his number.

The judge gave his final approval to two proposed classes

  • TCPA class: all persons (1) to whom Convergent has made or made a call, (2) using an ATDS or an artificial or pre-recorded voice, (3) from November 2016 to February 2019, and (4) either ( i) directed to a mobile phone number that has not been assigned to the intended recipient of the call, or (ii) directed to a mobile phone number that Convergent has been instructed to stop calling, or was informed that it was the wrong number.
  • FDCPA class: all persons (1) to whom Convergent has made or made a call, (2) from May 2017 to February 2019, (3) in the context of consumer debt collection, (4) after Convergent was instructed to stop making calls to his number or was told the number was the wrong number.

The judge also approved the settlement amounts: a settlement fund of $ 40,000 was approved for the FDCPA portion, and … $ 3,710,000 for the TCPA portion. Essentially, for relatively the same claims and the same time period, the TCPA regulation was almost 100 times higher than the FDCPA regulation. Highlighting this pattern, claimant named Sheehan received barely $ 50 from the FDCPA fund and $ 4,450 from the TCPA settlement fund. Plaintiffs’ attorney, Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, and Andrew Campbell approved their fees to recover $ 1,250,000 in attorney fees.


Editor’s Note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a constant stream of timely, insightful and entertaining shots of the constantly evolving and never boring Consumer Telephone Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP – and all insideARM articles – are copyrighted. All rights reserved.


Leave A Reply