In Ames v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2018 WL 3417516, at *2 (S.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court dismissed a Rosenthal Act transaction due to the absence of a consumer credit transaction.
T-Mobile argues that Plaintiff’s RFDCPA claim fails because Plaintiff does not allege a consumer debt. The existence of a consumer debt is a necessary element of Plaintiff’s RFDCPA claim. Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17. Consumer debt, for purposes of the RFDCPA, means debt stemming from a “consumer credit transaction.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(f). The RFDCPA defines a consumer credit transaction as “a transaction between a natural person and another person in which property, services or money is acquired on credit by that natural person from such other person primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(e). T-Mobile contends that no consumer credit transaction occurred because Plaintiff never acquired property, services, or money on credit from T-Mobile. In response, Plaintiff cites to Ayer v. Frontier Commc’ns Corp., 2017 WL 3049572 (C.D. Cal. 2017) for the proposition that the acquisition of telephone services on credit qualifies as a consumer credit transaction. Id. at *5. While this is an accurate statement of the law, it is unhelpful to Plaintiff because he does not allege that he actually acquired telephone services on credit from T-Mobile. Nor does Plaintiff allege that he acquired any other variety of product, service, or money on credit from T-Mobile. Because Plaintiff thus fails to allege a consumer credit transaction, the Court GRANTS T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss as to the RFDCPA claim.