Judge orders Time Warner to pay Irving woman $229,500 over relentless

A Time Warner spokeswoman said the company is reviewing its options after the ruling and will determine how to proceed.

A federal judge has awarded an Irving woman almost $230,000, saying Time Warner Cable harassed her with 153 robocalls even after she complained about the calls. King claims that she had a rather lengthy discussion with one of the cable company’s representatives explaining that she was not, in fact, Luis Perez. Time Warner kept robocalling King’s cell phone trying to collect a past due bill – 163 times.

Federal District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein rejected the latter argument.

Furthermore, Hellerstein noted, 74 of those robocalls to King were made after she filed suit in March 2014, and it would be “incredible” to believe that Time Warner Cable still didn’t know about King’s objections to the calls.

The United States made it illegal to make unwanted automated calls in 2009. While the customer agreement allows for robocalls, King clearly withdrew her consent after the 10th call.

TWC’s other two defenses were rejected out of hand by the judge.

Many Time Warner customers have received those delightful automated calls reminding them to pay their bill.

“”(TWC) argues that the list could just as easily have been created by a human.

“Millions of U.S. consumers get robocalls”. (There was, but it required making a trans-Atlantic call to Ireland.). TWC said that it had fallen victim to this law, which isn’t supposed to turn a harmless mistake into a huge payout. Attorney Jenny DeFrancisco, who represents King for the Stamford, Conn.-based firm Lemberg & Associates LLC, said in a phone interview that her client feels “happy” and “vindicated” with the result.

“The responsible company will reduce its exposure dramatically by taking proactive steps to mitigate damages, while its competitor, who unthinkingly robo-dials the same person hundreds of time over many months without pausing to wonder why it can not reach him, can not complain about much higher liability”, the judge wrote.