There has been a lot of talk recently about “inbound leads” in the TCPA world.
As I explained on contact.io, however, there are two important issues with inbound leads. First of all, most (but not all) so-called “inbound leads” are actually outbound-to-inbound, which means someone first made an outbound call or text to the consumer that generated the arrival. And that means the recipient of the incoming call can be stuck with any TCPA violation that the initiator caused in a vicarious liability theory, just by answering the phone.
The second problem, of course, is capturing express written consent on an incoming call, which cannot be done very efficiently (we’ll leave that discussion for another day.)
Well in Johnson v. Charter Communications, 2022 WL 4285726 (ND Al. Sept. 14, 2022), the defendant faces allegations that an apparently incoming call was actually the result of an outgoing call made by Tranche.
But it’s getting worse. Much worse.
Tranche reportedly edited the recording of the call to make it see as if the call was coming directly from the caller when in fact it was not.
An altered call recording is obviously quite a serious issue since it is an act of fraud – and one that could badly affect not only the primary provider, but also Charter.
In particular, it appears that Tranche is an offshore lead provider. People really have to be careful when relying on major providers and offshore call centers (Pakistan?). I’m not saying they’re all bad. But, yes, they are mostly all bad.
The applicant in Johnson intends to add Tranche to the suit and the Court allows the amendment even though it is late in the case. The courts do not like fraud. Not even a little.
Unrelated, if any of you are in Vegas this week for insuretech, drop me a note and let’s connect. I’m not on Linkedin anymore because it was a bad time, but you can message Queenie or the Lady, they know how to find me. Email also works.