The deck can really be stacked against TCPA defendants in class litigation. Even in seemingly straightforward cases.
For instance inSuarez v. Portfolio Recovery Associates,2025 WL 1191119 (April 8, 2025) the Plaintiff brought suit over unwanted collection calls.
Usually these cases don’t get very far anymore because courts hold debt collectors do not use an ATDS and, in this case at least, the Defendant had no record of using any prerecorded or artificial voice calling.
So, no marketing. No ATDS. No prerecorded or artificial voice calls.
Seems like a winner for the defense right?
Well, wrong.
The Plaintiff claimed she received prerecorded calls. And despite the fact she had no evidence to that effect– no call recordings, etc.–and despite the fact the defendant had no record of such calls either the issue is going to be sent to the jury.
That’s got to be frustrating for the defense here. But unlike in many cases I do not find fault in anything their lawyers did or didn’t do– this is just how the procedural rules work. If a plaintiff is willing to lie and say they received prerecorded calls–even if they didn’t– a judge is going to have a jury figure that out.
We shall see how this all turns out.
%20Investors%20with%20Substantial%20Losses%20Have%20Opportunity%20to%20Lead%20Investor%20Class%20Action%20Lawsuit){kind=link}