In Wells v. Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, 2014 WL 6474276 (S.D.Miss. 2014), Judge Starrett held that unanswered calls are not “communications” within the meaning of the FDCPA.

Section 1692a(2) defines “communication” as “the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2). At least one district court has held that an un-answered call constituted a “communication” under the FDCPA. Cerrato v. Solomon & Solomon, 909 F.Supp.2d 139, 145 (D.Conn.2012) (unanswered calls were communications under FDCPA because the caller ID indirectly conveyed information regarding a debt). Another court held that an unanswered call did not constitute a “com-munication” under the FDCPA. Wilfong v. Persolve, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71068, at *6–*10 (D. Or. June 2, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71078 (D. Or. June 30, 2011); see also Worsham v. Acct. Receivables Mgmt., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134870, at *9 (D.Md. Nov. 22, 2011) (unanswered calls are not “communications” under the FDCPA). Finally, another court split the difference between the two approaches and held that unanswered calls were not “communications” when the plaintiff did not know that the caller was a debt collector, but that later unanswered calls were “communications” because the plaintiff recognized that the caller was a debt collector. Rush v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. LLC, 977 F.Supp.2d 414, 423 (D.N.J.2013). ¶ The Court finds the reasoning of the Wilfong court persuasive: “Here, … there was no message left on plain-tiff’s telephone. No information regarding a debt was conveyed directly or indirectly to plaintiff by the receipt of an unanswered telephone call…. Even with a broad reading of the FDCPA to carry out its purpose, on these facts, the court concludes that the receipt of an unanswered tele-phone call does not constitute a ‘communication’ within the meaning of the FDCPA.” Wilfong, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71068 at *10. Under the FDCPA, a “communication” must “convey[ ] information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person….” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2). An unanswered phone call conveys no information regarding a debt. At best, caller identification technology conveys information about the call itself. See Wilfong, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71068 at *10; Worsham, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134870 at *9. Regardless, Plaintiff has not identified any evidence showing that the unanswered calls conveyed information regarding a debt. See Rush, 977 F.Supp.2d at 423. Therefore, Defendant’s unanswered calls—July 25, August 22, and August 23, 2013—do not violate 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c(a)(3), 1692d.