In 2017, the Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals made an important decision regarding the revocation of consumer consent. In the original case (Schweitzer v.Comenity Bank), Emily Schweitzer alleged that she had overdue charges on her Comenity Bank account and that with the use of an autodialer, collection agents called her numerous times to try to collect on the debt.  She alleged that when she picked up a call in October of 2013, she expressed disapproval with the constant calls during her work day.  She alleged that the agent told her that since these calls were autodialed, they could not be halted during certain blocks of time, and that after five more months of calls, Schweitzer finally asked for the calls to be stopped altogether. Schweitzer then filed a case against the bank, alleging that the calls made by Comenity in the five months after October of 2013 were in violation of the TCPA since she had already taken away her consent for Comenity Bank to call her then.  The district court did not find the bank to be at fault, but upon review, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision. The court first referenced a decision made in the Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2014), which held that consent could be revoked orally.  Building upon this ruling and other common-law principles, the Circuit then determined that the TCPA allows consumers to partially revoke unlimited consent that was previously given. The Eleventh Circuit stood firm in its ruling. If a consumer has been a victim of harassment through frequent calls from a creditor, which leave automated/pre-recorded messages through the usage of an autodialer, inquiring about their past due accounts or debts with a company, after they already told the company calling to stop calling, then those actions by a creditor may constitute violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”) and the consumer could qualify for monetary compensation.  The penalty against the offending company as laid out by this law may entitle the consumer to $500-$1,500.00 per each and every call made to the consumer’s cell phone after the consumer told the company to stop calling. The TCPA is a federal law that was enacted by Congress to protect a consumer’s privacy by placing limits on the actions of businesses that use automated telephone dialing machines to make phone calls, so that consumers are not harassed, and so that these companies do not infringe on a consumer’s right to privacy.  If companies are in violation of the statute, they could have to pay a consumer per communication attempt made to the consumer’s  cell phone after the consumer has told them to stop calling; whether the consumer owes them money or not. Everyone in this country has the right to be left alone, and to not be harassed.  There are legal ways for a creditor to collect on an outstanding debt, and rules that creditors need to follow.  If the frequency of the calls negatively affected the consumer in a way in which the consumer needs to seek medical treatment, and so forth, the company might also owe the consumer actual damages, such as for intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress, lost wages because of their actions, charges incurred due to loss of minutes on a cell phone plan, damages for the invasion of the consumer’s right to privacy, and more, depending on the state in which the consumer lives. In 2015, Comenity Bank was involved in a case with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) after multiple customers filed complaints against the company.  The FDIC determined the bank to allegedly be in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act due to some alleged uses of deception in marketing its payment protection add-on products (“Account Assure” and “Account Assure Pro”) for its credit cards.  These alleged programs are allegedly likened to insurance for a customer’s account, in that they would provide benefits to cover any charges in the event of a financial emergency.  The FDIC found Comenity Bank liable in reference to their following alleged actions:

• That the bank told their customers that if their accounts had no balances, they would not be charged a fee, however these customers were still charged.
• That the bank withheld/gave false information to customers about the refund process to those who canceled their coverage within 30 days.
• That the bank falsely incentivized their product with the promise of gift cards or account statement credits.

Comenity Bank settled the case with the FDIC and was ordered to refund a total of $61.5 million to the parties involved.  Of the total amount, around $2.5 million was paid as a civil money penalty and the rest was distributed amongst allegedly affected customers.  In addition to the monetary payment, the bank was also ordered to give alleged better explanations to cardholders about the terms and requirements regarding these payment programs and any incentives that may come with them. In 2015, a class action lawsuit was settled with Comenity Bank in the Southern District of Columbia in which a woman named Carrie Couser was the class representative.  The bank was accused of allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by allegedly calling plaintiffs’ cell phones and leaving pre-recorded messages and allegedly using an automatic dialing system without their expressed consent.  Comenity Bank denied these claims but it made the decision to settle the case.  Thus, the district court then ordered the bank to create a settlement pool of around $8.4 million for those that were allegedly affected by their actions.  Class Members were estimated to have allegedly received between $15.00 and $35.00 from this settlement. If any creditor, using an automated telephone dialing machine with the capability for predictive dialing, keeps robocalling a consumer’s cell phone after the consumer has told them to stop calling, they could be violating the consumer’s rights under the TCPA and could owe the consumer monetary damages of $500-1,500.00 per call.