Alder Hit with Class Action Over Allegedly ‘Incessant’ Debt Collection Robocalls

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Alder Holdings, LLC faces a proposed class action that claims the home security provider has continued to place robocalls to consumers’ cell phones even after they’ve requested that the calls stop.

The 12-page lawsuit alleges the defendant’s debt collection calls violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal law that prohibits the use of automated dialing equipment to place certain types of calls unless a recipient has provided their express written consent to be contacted.

The two plaintiffs in the case are Flint, Michigan residents who claim to have received from Alder no fewer than 20 robocalls to each of their cell phones after individually requesting that the calls cease.

According to the suit, the plaintiffs initially signed up for Alder’s home security services in 2016. The consumers canceled the services in February 2022 by submitting a cancellation form to the defendant via email, the filing states.

The case alleges, however, that Alder, “[f]or some unknown reason,” did not accept the plaintiffs’ cancellation request and instead began placing collection calls to their cell phones in an attempt to collect the allegedly past-due balance on their account.

Per the lawsuit, one of the plaintiffs informed Alder that their March 2022 payment would be their last given they had canceled their services with the company. Alder nevertheless continued placing collection calls to the plaintiffs’ cell phones despite their multiple attempts to cancel the home security services, the case alleges.

Although the plaintiffs answered some of the calls in April 2022 and informed Alder that they disputed its claim that they owed a balance on their account and requested that the collection calls cease, their dispute and request “fell on deaf ears,” according to the lawsuit.

The case claims that it was evident to the plaintiffs that Alder’s phone calls used an artificial or prerecorded voice because the defendant left “identical” voicemails each time the consumers did not answer. Per the case, the voicemails all featured a “monotone” voice that stated the following message:

The suit goes on to claim that one plaintiff told an Alder representative to stop calling because the robocalls were harassing and disruptive. In response, the representative informed the plaintiff that the calls did not constitute “harassment,” and that they would continue until “the bill is paid,” the case alleges.

According to the lawsuit, Alder’s “incessant robocalls” invaded the plaintiffs’ privacy and caused them “actual harm.”

The suit looks to represent anyone in the U.S. to whose cell phone Alder or a third party acting on its behalf placed or caused to be placed a call using an artificial or prerecorded voice without the individual’s consent at any time within the past four years and through the date of class certification.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.