Another bank wrong number TCPA lawsuit
- Peter Schneider
- Jun 17
- 3 min read
Updated: Jul 22
Ever since wrong number telephone consumer protection act case N. L. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 960 F.3d 1164, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17434 went against the bank, I have been surprised banks and similar callers haven't done more to ensure they are calling the right person.
This week it is Brooks v. Lone Star Credit Union 2025 WL 1654697 (M.D. Fl. June 11, 2025) and this time is about automated fraud alerts sent to the wrong person.
In a story as old as time, Ms. Brooks acquired a new cell phone in October of 2024, and it came with unwanted phone calls. In this particular lawsuit Lonestar Credit Union was calling for a Rena Sharzer about suspected fraud activity.
Banks are allowed to call their own customers over suspected fraud (under 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(9)(iii)(C)), but that comes with a list of limitations, one being 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(9)(iii)(A) Voice calls and text messages must be sent only to the wireless telephone number provided by the customer of the financial institution.
Lonestar hopes this exemption covers them in a wrong telephone number lawsuit:
The defendants principally argue that this action should be dismissed because the fraud alert exemption to the TCPA bars Brooks’s claim. Brooks responds, first, that the exemption is inapplicable because she did not give prior express consent to the defendants to call her, and, second, that in any event the elements of the exemption are not plain from the face of the complaint. Brooks’s first argument fails. But her second argument is on the mark.
The judge explained why Brooks's first argument didn't necessarily succeed for the reasons Brooks used, but didn't explain why it failed, so will have to wait for another day there.
In the second argument, Brooks's complaint didn't address or negate the fraud alert exemption, and the court noted “[A] complaint may be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim—based on an affirmative defense—only when the affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint.” before going down the rabbit hole of was Ms. Brooks charged for the call, an apparent nod to 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(1)(iii):
no person or entity may initiate any telephone call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or is made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice To any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.
The judge is setting this case up for a dismissal on technicalities
Second, while the parties agree that the call at issue included a toll-free number, the complaint does not say whether a customer could opt out by calling the number, nor does Brooks allege that she called the number. The complaint does not show that either of these requirements are met.
but allowing for limited discovery. Likely Ms. Brooks won't show the court that she has a limited minutes plan, or that she tried to opt out by calling the toll-free number and the judge is sending clear signals to Lonestar she is willing to dismiss for these reasons if they get a few answers in discovery.
This is a lesson in using attorneys and the law to help build your case along the way. One more hoop to jump through is probably the difference between a case that sticks and one that doesn't.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve had similar problems with telemarketers, debt collectors, or bankruptcy-related harassment, we might feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.
Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana?
I handle TCPA lawsuits in Washington State and Oregon, and may be able to help.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you're thinking of suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.
Comments