Law Street Media

Marketing Company Sued Over Robocalls

A cell phone reciving a call from an unknown number.

Phone call from unknown number late at night. Scam, fraud or phishing with smartphone concept. Prank caller, scammer or stranger. Man answering to incoming call. Hoax person with fake identity.

On Monday in the District of Nebraska, plaintiff Ben Fabrikant filed a class-action complaint against Clear Link Technologies, LLC claiming the defendant engaged in the “illegal practice of making illegal robocalls to the cellular and residential telephones of consumers nationwide.”

The plaintiff proffered that as part of its marketing plan, Clear Link Technologies allegedly “sent thousands of artificial or prerecorded voice messages to consumers’ phones nationwide.” Moreover, Clear Link Technologies allegedly used its technology to “spam consumers with its advertising on a grand scale.” However, plaintiff Fabrikant averred that Clear Link Technologies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because it “did not obtain express written consent prior to sending these artificial or prerecorded voice messages” and these messages were not for an emergency. Specifically, the TCPA “restrict[s] the use of sophisticated telemarketing equipment that could target millions of consumers en masse.” As a result of the defendant’s purported conduct, Clear Link Technologies invaded consumers’ privacy and their statutory rights, according to the plaintiff.  

Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that when he and the putative class “answered their phones expecting to hear from a real person, Defendant pulled a bait and switch by playing an artificial or prerecorded voice message.” However, plaintiff Fabrikant contended that this was done without obtaining consent from consumers. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the call he received from the defendant was from a spoofed number using the same area code as the plaintiff to “trick” him into answering the phone, but when plaintiff Fabricant answered the phone he “heard an artificial or prerecorded voice message” and was urged to stay on the line to speak to a representative. The plaintiff argued that he did not consent to receiving these calls and does not have a relationship with the defendant. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that in addition to causing statutory damages, the defendant’s purported conduct also caused the plaintiff “annoyance, intrusion on privacy and seclusion, and wasted [his] time.”

The plaintiff has sought to certify the class and for the plaintiff and his counsel to represent the class, declaratory judgment, an injunction, an award for damages, an award for costs and fees, and other relief.

Fabrikant is represented by Javitch Law Office.

Exit mobile version