Plaintiff complains about multiple telemarketing calls.
A California resident has sued Web.com, claiming the company called her cell phone multiple times in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit seeks class action status.
Web.com disclosed the lawsuit in its most recent quarterly filing:
On October 31, 2014, a putative class action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Tammy Hussin, et al. v. Web.com Group, Inc.). The lawsuit complains that the Company allegedly contacted the plaintiff and putative class (which plaintiff alleges may “number in the thousands, if not more”) on their cellular telephones via an automatic telephone dialing system without their prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (“TCPA”). Plaintiff is seeking for each alleged TCPA violation $500 in statutory damages or $1,500 if a willful violation is shown. In addition to statutory damages and damages for willful violations, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. We have not yet responded to the Complaint and discovery has not yet commenced but we intend to vigorously defend ourself.
The lawsuit (pdf) alleges that Web.com placed multiple calls from 855-817-4548 using an autodialer. The caller then said they “had noticed that Plaintiff’s website had not yet gone ‘live’ and Defendant wished to know if Plaintiff would be needing web design services.”
A quick Google search shows a number of other people complaining about Web.com’s phone solicitations.
Anyone who has an account with Network Solutions or Register.com knows that the company is aggressive with its cross-selling. In this case, the plaintiff claims she didn’t have any business relationship with Web.com and that the company admitted this to her on one of the phone calls.
Attorneys for the plaintiff did not respond to Domain Name Wire’s request for more information.
Devan Crow says
In the United States, even if the consumer’s wireless number is NOT on the federal do not call list, not on any state no call list, nor on the companies no-call list, and even when the business and consumer have an existing relationship still less than 18-months old, the business is required to have written permission to call a consumer with a wireless number.
WhitePages.com’s API does not include support for state no call lists and their line type metric does not account for numbers that have been ported from their original block assignment. Currently Ported numbers account for 4% of all active telephone numbers.
couponpages says
That’s good to know. I still get so many calls on numbers I ported from landlines to cell phones.
Andrew Richard says
It was very difficult now from getting rid of these telemarketing calls,even though we are registered with dnd,there are lots of places these companies can get our names
Robert Simpson says
I’ve been getting multiple calls a day with that spiel, almost word for word, from an “Unknown” (blocked) number. I’ve been wondering who it was.
Chris Pecic says
David Brown, the CEO of web.com is a liar, crook, and a flim flam artist. David Brown belongs in an orange jumpsuit.
steven yates says
I received a call on my cell phone from 855-817-4548 ! I am on the DO NOT CALL LIST. I have read other peoples complaints and I would like to take action. What do I need to do ?
KoolDevin1959 says
I am being called by the same number multiple times and i dont know why.
M. Truot says
Apart from just calling my phone they sent me several emails saying that it’s an “expiration notice” meaning that if I don’t sign up to the deal right now to “activate my site” I will lose out on the deal..
They made it sound like I have an unpaid bill or something, very deceptive indeed!
Thanks for reporting it apart from 800notes there’s about 5 pages of complaints on whycall.me
Phone Scam Hunter says
I got a call today after I registered a new domain name with WEB .COM 2 days ago. This person called stating to verify accounting information and the last step was to verify my Credit Card information. I told him the card information was already provided to WEB .COM and they have the info. to make the monthly charges, he tried to convince me why he needed to verify the credit card information, which I declined to provide him any details.