The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge James B. Zagel
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant IC System ("Defendant" or "IC") collects debts on behalf of the popular electronic payment service PayPal. IC contacted Plaintiff Diego Frausto ("Plaintiff' or "Frausto") in an attempt to collect a debt Frausto allegedly owed to the auction website eBay. In a second amendment complaint, Frausto sought individual relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and made a class claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The parties have reached agreement on the FDCPA claim. As for the TCPA claim, Defendant moved for summary judgment, Plaintiff cross-moved and also moved for class certification. Taking the summary judgment motion first,*fn1 I grant it for Defendant.
Plaintiff Diego Frausto opened a PayPal account in December of 2003. During the registration process, Frausto provided his name, email address, street address, bank account information, and a phone number.
In addition to this personal information, Frausto consented to PayPal's user agreement. Among other provisions, the agreement contains the following:
1.10 Calls to You. By providing PayPal a telephone number (including a wireless/cellular telephone), you consent to receiving autodialed and prerecorded message calls from PayPal at that number.
Frausto used his PayPal account as part of a sale he made on the online auction site eBay. Frausto sold a handbag to a third party who in turn claimed it was damaged. Frausto offered a refund, minus a twenty percent restocking fee. The buyer refused and took the dispute to PayPal. PayPal decided in favor of the buyer, gave the buyer a refund, and debited Frausto. The end result was a negative balance of $254.41 in Frausto's account.
PayPal contracts its debt collection function to Defendant IC Systems. Defendant admits sending collection letters and placing at least three calls to the number Frausto provided also attempting to collect the debt. Plaintiff asserts there were as many as thirty-eight calls to his number.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). If the moving party meets this initial burden, the nonmoving party must then go beyond the pleadings and "designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A district court views all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 255. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court applies this standard to both motions; in other words, it must view all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made. Tate v. Long Term Disability Plan for Salaried Employees of Champion Int'l Corp. #506, 545 F.3d 555, 559 (7th Cir. 2008).
In relevant part, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") makes it ...