1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

MISTY MURRAY AND SHAUN MURRAY, )

individually and on behalf of a class of )

similarly situated individuals, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. 12-cv-4789

)

v. )

)

BILL ME LATER, INC., a Delaware corporation, ) Judge: 

)

)

Defendant. )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs Misty Murray and Shaun Murray (“Plaintiffs”) bring this class action complaint 

against Defendant Bill Me Later, Inc. (“BML”) to stop Defendant’s practice of placing 

unauthorized telephone calls to consumers using a prerecorded or artificial voice, and to obtain 

redress for all persons injured by Defendant’s conduct. For their class action complaint, 

Plaintiffs allege as follows upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their own acts and 

experiences, and as to all other matters, upon information and belief, including investigation 

conducted by their attorneys.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. In an effort to advance its consumer loan origination business, BML, a purveyor 

of consumer loans for products purchased at various retail stores online, violated federal law by 

making unauthorized telephone calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice (“robocalls”) to the 

telephones of individuals throughout the nation.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
2

2. By effectuating these unauthorized robocalls, Defendant has caused such call 

recipients actual harm, not only because the called parties were subjected to the aggravation and 

privacy invasion that necessarily accompanies unsolicited calls – particularly calls using a

prerecorded or non-human artificial voice – but also because the called parties, like Plaintiffs, 

must frequently pay for the calls they receive or incur a usage allocation deduction from their 

calling plans, notwithstanding that the calls were made in violation of specific legislation on the 

subject.

 3. In order to redress these injuries, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a 

nationwide class, bring suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et 

seq. (the “TCPA”), which protects the privacy right of consumers to be free from receiving 

unsolicited telephone calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice.

4. On behalf of the proposed Classes, Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring 

Defendant to cease all unauthorized telephone calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice and an 

award of actual and statutory damages to the class members, together with costs and attorneys’

fees.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 5. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331, as the action arises under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 

et seq.

6. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)

because (a) at least one member of the putative class is a citizen of a state different from any 

Defendant, (b) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, 

and (c) none of the exceptions under that subsection apply to the instant action.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
3

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because Defendant 

transacts business in this District and transmitted the unauthorized calls to Plaintiffs within this 

District.

8. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) 

because Plaintiffs reside in this District, Defendant transacts business in this District, and a 

substantial part of the events concerning the unauthorized calls at issue occurred in this District, 

as Plaintiffs received Defendant’s unauthorized prerecorded and/or artificial voice calls within 

this District.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiffs Misty Murray and Shaun Murray are married individuals domiciled in 

Kane County, Illinois.

10. Defendant is a nationwide purveyor of consumer loans offered and transacted 

through websites of numerous well-known merchants, such as Wal-Mart and Best Buy. 

Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Maryland. 

Defendant is registered and conducts business in Illinois, including in this District, and conducts 

business elsewhere throughout the United States. 

COMMON ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

11. Defendant BML is a provider of an online payment service for consumers. 

Defendant's service, known as "Bill Me Later," offers credit to consumers in the form of loans 

for the purchase of merchandise at “over 1,000 retail stores” online.1

 1

 For example, if a consumer attempts to purchase an item from WalMart's website, “Bill Me Later” appears as a 

payment option alternative to credit card use. The consumer may elect to utilize the BML service by filling out an 

application, which includes a phone number. The approval process is nearly instantaneous and, if approved, BML's 

agent, third-party financial institution WebBank Corporation, funds the loan for the consumer’s direct purchase of 

the item. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
4

12. While Defendant does not provide funding for individual loans itself (Defendant's 

agent, third-party WebBank Corporation, is the lender), Defendant solicits consumers to apply 

for such loans, processes their applications and remains involved in the administration of such 

loans for the duration of their terms. 

13. As an ordinary business practice, Defendant BML collects telephone numbers 

from consumers who apply for a BML-originated loan and informs such consumers that they can 

expect to receive calls from Defendant at the number provided. 

14. Defendant’s loan application and administration processes lack the procedures

necessary to confirm that the telephone numbers Defendant receives or calls actually belong to 

the loan applicants providing them.

15. As a consequence, many of the telephone numbers in Defendant’s database are

inaccurate, resulting in Defendant routinely placing prerecorded or artificial voice telephone calls 

to individuals who never provided consent to be called by Defendant. 

16. For instance, beginning on or about March 20, 2012, Defendant attempted to 

contact someone named “Feeza Tahir,” stating it had “an important message” about such 

person's alleged Bill Me Later account, in an apparent effort to collect on a debt.

17. Instead of calling Feeza Tahir, however, Defendant and/or its telemarketing 

agents called Plaintiffs and left the following message on their telephone: 

I’m calling Feeza Tahir with an important message regarding your 

Bill Me Later account. Please call us today toll free at (800) 684-

4340 and use the following reference code: 1700. The toll free 

number again is (800) 684-4340 and the reference code is 1700. You 

may also visit our website at www.BillMeLater.com. Thank you 

for your attention to this important matter. We look forward to 

hearing from you.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
5

18. The above message was prerecorded and/or featured a non-human “artificial” 

voice.

19. Upon information and belief, Defendant places calls, including the calls made to 

Plaintiffs, en masse using a “predictive” dialer, which automatically places calls without human 

intervention until the called party answers the call, at which time the automatic dialer attempts to 

connect the called party with a human representative.

20. Since receiving that initial call in March 2012, Plaintiffs have had their privacy 

invaded by Defendant virtually every day, receiving the same or similar telephone calls from a 

prerecorded and/or artificial voice on scores of occasions over the last several months.

21. Exasperated, Plaintiffs repeatedly informed Defendant’s customer service 

department that the phone number that Defendant had been calling did not belong to Feeza Tahir 

and that Defendant did not have permission to call that number. However, Plaintiffs’ complaints 

were repeatedly ignored by Defendant, and Defendant’s unauthorized robocalls continued 

unabated. 

22. At no time did Plaintiffs sign up to receive Defendant’s consumer loan services,

and at no time did Plaintiffs provide Defendant with consent to receive any telephone calls, 

including any prerecorded or artificial voice calls, from Defendant.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

23. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and two classes (the, 

“Classes”) defined as follows: 

(i) Called Party Class: All persons in the United States and its territories who received 

one or more telephone calls from Defendant featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice where the

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
6

called party was not the same individual who, according to Defendant’s records, provided the 

phone number to Defendant; and 

(ii) Revocation Class: All persons in the United States and its territories who received 

one or more telephone calls from Defendant featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice after 

communicating to Defendant that Defendant did not have consent to make any such calls to that 

telephone number.

24. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the other 

members of the Classes. Plaintiffs have retained counsel with substantial experience in 

prosecuting complex litigation and class actions. Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to 

vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the other members of the Classes, and have the 

financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any interest adverse to 

those of the other members of the Classes. 

25. Absent a class action, most members of the Classes would find the cost of 

litigating their claims to be prohibitive and would have no effective remedy. The class treatment 

of common questions of law and fact is also superior to multiple individual actions or piecemeal 

litigation in that it conserves the resources of the courts and the litigants, and promotes 

consistency and efficiency of adjudication.

26. Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes, requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform 

relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Classes.

27. The factual and legal bases of Defendant’s liability to Plaintiffs and to the other 

members of the Classes are the same, resulting in injury to the Plaintiffs and to all of the other 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
7

members of the Classes. Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes have all suffered harm 

and damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful conduct. 

28. Upon information and belief, there are thousands of members of both Classes 

such that joinder of all members is impracticable. 

29. There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiffs and 

the other members of the Classes, and those questions predominate over any questions that may 

affect individual members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes include, but are not 

limited to, the following:

(a) Did Defendant systematically place calls using a prerecorded or artificial 

voice to persons that did not previously provide Defendant with consent to 

call their respective telephone numbers?

(b) Did Defendant systematically continue to place calls using a prerecorded 

or artificial voice to persons who communicated to Defendant that they 

did not consent to receive such calls from Defendant?

(c) Did the calls made by Defendant using a prerecorded or artificial voice 

violate the called parties’ respective rights to privacy?

(d) Was Defendant’s conduct in violation of the TCPA willful such that the 

Class members are entitled to treble damages?

COUNT I

(Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227, et seq.) on behalf of the Classes)

30. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
8

31. Defendant made unsolicited and unauthorized telephone calls using a prerecorded 

or artificial voice to the telephone numbers of Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes.

32. Defendant has, therefore, violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 47 

U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B).

33. As a result of Defendant’s illegal conduct, the members of the Classes suffered 

actual damages and, under 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(B), are each entitled, inter alia, to a minimum of 

$500.00 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.

34. Defendant’s misconduct was willful and knowing, and the Court should, pursuant 

to § 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by Plaintiffs and the other 

members of the Classes.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Classes, pray for the 

following relief:

1. An order certifying the Classes as defined above; 

2. An award of actual and statutory damages;

3. An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unauthorized prerecorded

and/or artificial voice telephone activities; 

4. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs;

5. Such further and other relief as the Court deems reasonable and just. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs request trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
9

Dated: June 15, 2012

MISTY MURRAY AND SHAUN MURRAY, 

individually and on behalf of a class of similarly 

situated individuals

By: /s/ Evan M. Meyers

One of their attorneys

Evan M. Meyers

John Ochoa

EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Telephone: (312) 589-6370

Fax: (312) 589-6378

emeyers@edelson.com

jochoa@edelson.com

Firm ID: 44146

Michael J. McMorrow 

mjmcmorrow@smithmcmorrow.com

SMITH & MCMORROW P.C.

53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1018

Chicago, IL 60604

Tel: (312) 546-6139

Fax: (888) 664-8172

mjmcmorrow@smithmcmorrow.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Misty Murray and

Shaun Murray

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9