In Horowitz v. GC Services Limited Partnership, 2016 WL 7188238, at *9 (S.D.Cal. 2016), Judge Anello granted summary to an FDCPA plaintiff as to voicemail messages left that failed to give meaningful disclosure.
However, it does not follow that Defendant had to either leave a voicemail lacking the disclosures required by section 1692d(6) or leave a voicemail that violates section 1692c(b). As the Eleventh Circuit as well as other courts have noted in relatively similar circumstances, “even if Niagara’s assumption [that leaving required disclosures on voicemails would violate 1692c(b) if heard by third parties] is correct, the answer is that the Act does not guarantee a debt collector the right to leave answering machine messages.” See Edwards v. Niagara Credit Sols., Inc., 584 F.3d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 2009); Sclafani, 2010 WL 4116471 at *3 (allowing a third party non-consumer to sue for a violation of section 1692d(6)) (“If BC Services could not leave voice messages that simultaneously complied with the multiple applicable provisions of FDCPA, it should not have left the offending voice messages.”). Thus, Defendant was not required to, nor had a right to, leave a voicemail at the 9515 number. For the foregoing reasons, the Court is unpersuaded that, based on Defendant’s rock-and-a-hard-place argument, it must conclude that non-consumers may not allege violations of section 1692d despite that the provision does not explicitly limit liability to consumers, and in fact, provides for liability to “any person.”