Skip to content Skip to navigation

RSI Enterprises Debt Collection Voicemail Omission FDCPA Class Action

Hand Reaching Out in a Request for Money

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires that consumer debtors be given certain information when third-party debt collectors attempt collection. The complaint for this class action claims that RSI Enterprises, Inc. did not fulfill the legal requirements in leaving voicemail messages in connection with its attempts to collect a debt.

The class for this action is

  • All persons in Arizona
  • For whom RSI Enterprises left a voicemail message in connection with the collection of a consumer debt,
  • Based upon the template presented in this action, and
  • Where RSI mailed the person any initial written correspondence dated the same day or later than the message was left.

Congress passed the FDCPA in order to stop abusive behavior when third-party debt collectors attempted to collect consumer debts. Among other things, it requires that debt collectors provide certain information so that consumers can make the best and most informed choices as to what to do about their debts.

The FDCPA requires that debt collectors identify themselves as such. The complaint cites an earlier court case as saying that the law forbids the “failure to disclose in the initial … communication with the consumer … that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.”

RSI’s initial communication with plaintiff Kimberly Driesen was a telephone voice message, the complaint says. Driesen allegedly owed a consumer debt incurred for medical services, for personal, family, or household purposes.

In connection with this alleged debt, an RSI employee called Driesen on February 27, 2018. The person left a voicemail which said, “We have an important message from RSI Enterprises. This call is from a debt collector. Call 602-627-2301. Thank you.” According to the complaint, this was not a sufficient communication that the call was an attempt to collect a debt and that any information obtained would be used for that purpose.

Later that day, a different employee of RSI also called Driesen. That person left an identical voicemail.

Several days later, Driesen did receive a letter, dated the same day as the calls, that did make that disclosure.

However, the complaint claims that the company should have made the disclosure in its voicemails. Since the two messages were identical, the complaint alleges that the company uses scripts for its voicemails. It thus claims that the company would have habitually excluded information required by the FDCPA in its calls and voicemails.

Article Type: 

Free Case Evaluation

Fill out the information for a FREE and prompt case evaluation.

About you

Additional Information

Latest Tweets

Join Us on Facebook