Real estate company Colony Ridge Development routinely sends ad or marketing text messages to residential phone numbers listed with the national do not call registry without “the prior express invitation or permission required” by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged a class action Wednesday (docket 4:24-cv-02418) in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Houston. Plaintiff Eric Geaslin listed his cellphone number with the national DNC registry in December 2019, yet he received multiple text messages from Colony beginning in late 2022 and continuing through to the present, said the complaint. The Spanish-language text messages advertised properties for sale, but the Plantersville, Texas, resident didn’t recognize the sender, nor does he speak or read Spanish, it said. In light of allegations made by government regulators such as the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Colony engages in a predatory business model through which it seeks to solicit Hispanic consumers to purchase land or property under unfavorable financial conditions, said the complaint. Geaslin estimates he received at least 20 ad or telemarketing text messages from Colony on his cellphone between 2022 and the present, it said. Geaslin suffered actual harm as a result of the text messages “in that he suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into his life, and a private nuisance,” it said.

Cactus Home Offer, a real estate company, violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages to consumers without their consent, including to consumers whose numbers are listed on the national do not call registry, alleged a class action Wednesday (docket 2:24-cv-01552) in U.S. District Court for Arizona. Darren MacDonald, a Scottsdale resident, filed his class action seeking injunctive relief, requiring Cactus to cease sending unsolicited text messages to consumers’ cellphone numbers, and otherwise texting consumers listed with the DNC registry, it said. He also seeks an award of statutory damages for himself and members of the class, it said.

Paul Veksler personally listed his cellphone number on the national do not call registry in August 2005, yet he began receiving “invasive solicitation calls” in June from TaxReliefCenter.org pitching him on its financial services, alleged Veksler’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Tuesday (docket 2:24-cv-05370) in U.S. District Court for Central California. Despite the Westlake Village, California, resident’s request that the solicitation calls cease, TaxReliefCenter.org continued placing solicitation calls to his cellphone, including multiple times a day, said the complaint. On June 17 alone, the defendant placed five solicitation calls to Veksler’s cellphone within a few hours, it said. In total, the plaintiff estimates that the defendant placed no fewer than 10 solicitation calls to his cellphone, it said.

As residents of Putnam County, West Virginia, Mandy and Richard Warden fall under the protection of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, said their complaint Tuesday (docket 3:24-cv-00313) in U.S. District Court for Southern West Virginia against American Express National Bank, a debt collector. Though the Wardens sent the bank written notification that they were represented by counsel, the debt collection calls continued, said the complaint. Upon information and belief, American Express maintains records of each call placed to the Wardens by date, time called, duration of call, the identity of the bank’s employee and other information, it said. Such records will reflect that the defendant placed phone calls to the Wardens after it received written notification that they were represented by an attorney, it said. The six-count complaint also alleges that American Express violated the West Virginia Computer Crimes and Abuse Act.

Dmitry Zinger received at least four automated telemarketing calls from Prince Laboratories, doing business as J&J Medical, to solicit him about its genetic testing services, alleged Zinger’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Monday (docket 0:24-cv-61100) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida. As part of his investigation into the illegal calls, the Wisconsin resident contacted his carrier, Verizon, “which was able to trace the source of these illegal calls to the ingress carriers” delivering them to his cellphone, said the complaint. It’s believed that a subpoena to these ingress carriers will further prove that Prince “is directly responsible for the illegal calls,” it said. Zinger and members of the class have been harmed by the defendant’s acts “because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed,” it said. The calls occupied their phone lines, “rendering them unavailable for legitimate communication, including while driving, working, and performing other critical tasks,” it said.

Consider Solar is a company that generates leads on behalf of various solar companies, and it relies on illegal telemarketing to do so, alleged a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Monday (docket 1:24-cv-01100) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia. Consider Solar violates the TCPA by making telemarketing calls to numbers on the national do not call registry and by using artificial or prerecorded voice messages to call residential phone numbers without consent, said the complaint. David Tom has a residential copper landline and a residential cellphone number that he personally listed on the national DNC registry in 2003, it said. The Florida resident nevertheless received at least three illegal prerecorded calls from Consider Solar, it said. All the calls came from the same caller ID, 571-496-7202, a number that’s associated with Consider Solar, it said: “This number has been flagged as a solar scam by multiple call reporting services, and reflect at least 3,404 calls to those services’ subscribers.” As a result of the calls, Tom was able to affirmatively identify the caller as Alfonso Torres, a Consider Solar employee, said the complaint. Torres emailed the plaintiff a Q&A video and attempted to sell him solar panels, it said. After Tom’s counsel contacted Consider Solar, the company “deleted and therefore spoliated this video evidence,” it said. Tom and members of the classes have been harmed by the company’s acts “because their privacy has been violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and, in some instances, they were charged for incoming calls,” said the complaint.

Angie’s List uses unsolicited text messaging to promote its goods and services, and continues to text-message consumers even after they have opted out of the company’s solicitations, a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action alleged Friday (docket 1:24-cv-22400). Angie’s List also engages in telemarketing “without the required policies and procedures," and its telemarketing personnel lack proper training, Leonardo Aguilar’s complaint said. Aguilar asked to opt out of Angie’s List’s text messaging April 22 when he replied “stop” to one of those messages, according to the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern Florida. But the defendant ignored the request, and continued sending the Florida resident multiple text messages through June 17, his complaint said. The text messages advertised home repair and roofing services, it said.

A marketing and real estate firm in Mesa, Arizona, “routinely violates” the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by delivering ads or telemarketing text messages to residential or cellphone numbers listed on the national do not call registry, and does so “without the prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA,” alleged Mandi Potter’s class action Friday (docket 4:24-cv-00866) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Missouri. American House Partners appears to operate a telemarketing enterprise, “the likes of which the TCPA has largely done away with,” said the Imperial, Missouri, resident’s complaint. It operates in “brazen disregard” of the TCPA’s restrictions, it said. The company openly touts that it engages in ongoing “cold call” telemarketing and high pressure sales tactics to acquire consumers’ homes "for massive discounts on their fair market value," it said. It then promptly flips those homes to other investors “for substantial profits by way of assignment contracts,” it said. Potter personally listed her cellphone number with the DNC registry in 2018, “and has maintained that registration through the present date,” it said. She nevertheless began receiving numerous text messages in March from a “rotating series of phone numbers,” seeking to solicit her to use American House Partners in the sale of her home, it said. Potter didn’t give the defendant prior express written consent to send text messages to her cellphone number, said the complaint. The plaintiff “suffered actual harm as a result of the text messages at issue in that she suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a private nuisance,” it said. She suffered additional harm “due to her frustration and difficulty in identifying the entity and persons responsible” for the unwanted text messages, it said. American House Partners knew, or should have known, that Potter registered her cellphone number with the DNC registry, it said.

Goldman Sachs Bank used, controlled or operated a phone system that was designed to place multiple calls to Andrea Dickson’s cellphone to collect a debt using an artificial voice or prerecorded voice message, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protections Act and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleged Dickson’s class action Thursday (docket 3:24-cv-01070) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. Goldman Sachs issued Dickson an Apple-branded consumer credit card in 2022 for personal and household expenses, said the complaint. The San Diego County resident continued making regular monthly payments to her account and maintained it in good standing until July, when she fell on financial hardship and was unable to maintain the regular monthly payments, it said. After Dickson defaulted on her account, Goldman Sachs agents phoned her multiple times and requested payment using a prerecorded voice, “often as many as twice per day, sometimes every day,” it said. Dickson’s attorney sent Goldman Sachs a cease and desist letter in September, revoking any prior consent to contact her, it said. The bank nevertheless phoned her at least 125 times after receiving the revocation letter, said the complaint. The plaintiff alleges that Goldman Sachs phoned her more than two to three times in a single day, and often more than seven times a week, “based on her recollection of the frequency of calls, as well as the records of calls that she has in her possession,” it said. According to Dickson’s recollection, the multiple calls featured an “automated robotic type voice,” which is “indicative of a prerecorded voice message using what appeared to be a computerized automated voice used in an attempt to collect upon the subject debt,” it said.

Robert Clough seeks the dismissal of Plymouth Rock’s counterclaim in which the insurer alleges Clough violated the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act by running a “cottage industry” of filing “sham” Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuits (see 2402200001), said the plaintiff’s brief Thursday (docket 2:21-cv-19343) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark in support of his motion to dismiss. The counterclaim alleges that Clough falsely misrepresented his interest in seeking automobile insurance policies and quotes, while fraudulently using a third person’s identity without permission. He did so “solely and expressly for the purpose of concocting an otherwise meritless claim” under the TCPA, alleges Plymouth. But the counterclaim “is nothing more than a contrived attempt to intimidate and bully a consumer for daring to hold it to account for illegal telemarketing,” said Clough’s brief. The counterclaim “is frivolous on its face,” and the court should dismiss it with prejudice, it said. Plymouth sues Clough for insurance fraud, even though he “has never submitted an insurance claim to Plymouth, never applied for benefits, never been a Plymouth customer, never applied for an insurance policy from Plymouth, and never initiated any communication to Plymouth whatsoever,” said the brief. Clough “has never even communicated directly with Plymouth,” it said. To the contrary, the sole basis for Plymouth’s claim is that when its telemarketer placed an illegal unsolicited telemarketing call to Clough in August 2021, he answered the call “and played along with the telemarketer’s bogus script so that the telemarketer would divulge who was calling and why,” it said. Clough purposely stayed on the line long enough only to obtain an insurance quote, “even though he wasn’t really interested in obtaining an insurance policy,” it said. Plymouth doesn’t claim to have ever received any false information from Clough, “let alone to have ever relied upon it to its detriment or otherwise,” it said. Plymouth alleges that “some unidentified third party,” not the insurer itself, provided the insurance quote and that that was the end of the matter, it said. Clough didn’t respond to the quote, inquire further, or apply for any insurance policy, and the company “fails to allege how any of this impacted Plymouth in the slightest,” it said. Plymouth “identifies no cognizable damages or harm whatsoever,” it said.