Yes. Transworld Systems (“Transworld”), a known debt collector, was sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the Eastern Division for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The FDCPA is a federal law that provides legal protection for consumers against unlawful debt collection actions. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:18-cv-05181.

The plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt from a creditor that was assigned to Transworld for collection purposes. She alleged that the defendant made a call to her cellphone in order to collect the alleged debt and that she failed to answer this call. The plaintiff alleged that in the following days, the defendant called her numerous times in relation to the alleged debt, sometimes multiple times on the same day, from a variety of numbers that all belonged to the defendant. 

Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that she called the defendant in order to notify them that their actions of calling her repeatedly, hanging up the phone after she answered, and not responding after she answered qualified as harassment. The plaintiff also alleged that she wanted verification of the alleged debt and that she had requested that the defendant cease telephone contact with her. However, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s employee told her that they would continue with the collection activities. The plaintiff alleged that in the few days following that call, the defendant continued to place many calls to her phone and continued to hang up on the plaintiff or to fail to respond to her answer.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s actions violated the FDCPA because they engaged in practices that resulted in harassment or abuse, they caused her cell phone to ring repeatedly, and they failed to validate her debt, amongst other actions.

Transworld was also sued in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:11-cv-06148-SS.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that Transworld sent a letter to his mother in relation to an alleged debt that the plaintiff owed. Allegedly, the plaintiff’s mother’s name was added to the letter which made it seem like she also owed the alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that he neither lived with his mother nor used her mailing address as his own. He also alleged that the plaintiff did not send him a letter to his own address.

Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that his legal counsel asked the defendant for verification of the alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that after the defendant failed to respond to this letter, his counsel sent a second letter that the defendant also did not respond to.

According to the plaintiff, by sending a letter about the alleged debt to this mother, the defendant allegedly communicated with a third party for a purpose unrelated to obtaining information about the plaintiff’s location, provided their own identity to a third party without the information being requested, and disclosed the existence of an alleged debt to a third party. The plaintiff alleged that these actions constitute violations of the FDCPA.

In another case, a federal lawsuit was filed against Transworld for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This case occurred in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The docket number for this case is Case No. 3:18-cv-00192-DPM.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that he co-signed a student loan for a third party in June 2007 and that the last payment made on the loan was paid in June 2011. The plaintiff alleged that in June 2016, a lawsuit was filed against him for the student loan and that the case was dismissed without prejudice in September 2016.

Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that in December 2017, Transworld sent a collection letter to the plaintiff in regards to the alleged loan debt. The plaintiff alleged that this letter failed to inform him that the statute of limitations period had expired for the debt and that making a payment on the debt would revive the statute of limitations. The plaintiff alleged that his legal counsel then sent a letter to the defendant which both disputed the debt and informed the defendant that all communications should be sent to said counsel. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant provided his counsel with a validation letter and various other documents.

The plaintiff also alleged that a few months later, the defendant directly sent him a letter that included three debt settlement options. The plaintiff alleged that this letter also failed to mention the expiration of the statute of limitations. He alleged that these letters caused him to be worried and scared at the possibility of being sued again.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant allegedly violated the FDCPA by communicating with him even though they knew he was represented by an attorney, by falsely representing the character of his debt, and by using false or deceptive means to collect the alleged debt.

A federal lawsuit was also filed against Transworld for alleged violations of the FDCPA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the Western Division. The docket number for this case is Case No. 3:09-cv-50067.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant called the plaintiff a number of times from a registered phone number as well as from unknown, private, and blocked numbers. The plaintiff also alleged that on many calls, the defendant would hang up on the plaintiff after they answered the phone. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant threatened to sue the plaintiff and garnish the plaintiff’s wages; allegedly, neither had occurred.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA by causing a cell phone to ring continuously, by engaging in harassing conduct, and by making false or misleading statements, amongst other actions.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the debt collection process?

The FDCPA is a federal statute that was enacted to promote fair debt collection, to eliminate unlawful collection practices, and to provide legal protection to consumers against debt collectors. The FDCPA covers consumer debts like credit card debt, student loans, auto loans, and mortgages.

The FDCPA prohibits certain behaviors during the debt collection process. For example, when collecting a debt from a consumer, a debt collector cannot use abusive language, threaten to take action that cannot be taken, or act unconscionably, amongst other things. Additionally, debt collectors are restricted by the hours during which they can call a consumer — they can only communicate with consumers between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. — and they must cease their calls to a consumer if the individual asks them to stop calling. Furthermore, in most states, and unless a debt collector is a debt collection law firm, a debt collector cannot threaten to sue a consumer; as they do not have the present right to do so. In these cases, the right to sue remains with the original or current creditor.

If a debt collector has violated a consumer’s rights under the FDCPA, the consumer can sue them for damages. The consumer could be entitled to statutory damages of up to $1,000, as well as actual damages including, but not limited to harm or loss that resulted from a debt collector’s actions.