Settlement Reveals How Expensive the TCPA is Compared to Other Consumer Statutes Like the FDCPA

Another one.  Yikes. Expensive.   

Looking at the whopping class action settlement outcome registered in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, we can see a pattern.  In Sheean v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No: 2:18-cv-11532-GCS-RSW, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197446, the named Plaintiff, Michael Sheehan, claimed that he received debt collection calls from Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. (“Convergent”) via an ATDS or prerecorded voice, that were intended for other people. He alleged that he instructed Convergent to stop calling him, however, Convergent allegedly continued to place calls to his number.

The judge gave final approval to two proposed classes

• TCPA Class: All persons (1) to whom Convergent placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) by using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice, (3) from November 2016 through February 2019, and (4) either (i) directed to a cellphone number that was not assigned to the intended call recipient, or (ii) directed to a cellphone number that Convergent was instructed to stop calling, or was informed it was a wrong number.

• FDCPA Class: All persons (1) to whom Convergent placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) from May 2017 through February 2019, (3) in connection with consumer debt collection, (4) after Convergent was instructed to stop placing calls to his or her number or informed that the number was a wrong number.

The judge also approved the settlement amounts: a $40,000 settlement fund was approved for the FDCPA portion, and a… $3,710,000 for the TCPA portion.  Essentially, for relatively the same allegations and time period, the TCPA settlement was nearly 100 times more than the FDCPA settlement.  Highlighting this pattern, the named Plaintiff Sheehan, was awarded a mere $50 from the FDCPA fund, and $4,450 from the TCPA settlement fund.  Plaintiffs’ counsel, Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, and Andrew Campbell were approved their fees to recover $1,250,000 in attorney’s fees.

[article_ad]

--

Editor's note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved.