In Frausto v. IC System, Inc., 2011 WL 3704249 (N.D.Ill. 2011), Judge Zagel held that a debt collector was entitled to rely on the ‘consent’ obtained by the original creditor to call a consumer on his cellular telephone under the TCPA.
The dispositive issue here is the application of the “prior express consent” defense to the facts of this case. Defendant claims the defense applies because Plaintiff provided his mobile phone number in apply-ing for his PayPal account, that that number is the one used to pursue the debt, and that for purposes of pursuing the debt they step into the shoes of PayPal. Plaintiff counters that the terms of PayPal’s agreement only authorize PayPal itself to use his number to contact him regarding the debt. He further argues that he revoked his consent. ¶ Plaintiff’s first argument is plainly off the mark, because even if I assume that the contract limited use of his number to PayPal, the FCC’s ruling makes it clear that Defendant is, for purposes of the TCPA “PayPal” when it calls Plaintiff. See In re: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 23 F .C.C.R. at ¶ 9 (F.C.C.2007)
Judge Zagel also held that revocation of consent must be in writing.