If you’re a debt collector and you’re a little confused over what federal law allows you to do and what it doesn’t allow you to do when it comes to making automated outbound phone calls, there are two things you should do. First, stop making any calls until you have studied the matter. With fines as high as $5,000 per violation, you simply can’t afford to proceed if there is any confusion. Second, you can assure yourself you’re not alone: it’s a little hard not to be confused when it comes to the morass of conflicting court interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protect Act (TCPA), the oft-revised law that governs outbound calling.

Debt collectors had reason to cheer recently when a federal district court interpreted an element of the TCPA in the industry’s favor.  Finding for the defendant, First Financial Asset Management, Inc., the court found that when a consumer provides a cell phone number to a company with which it creates a debt, this implies “consent” to call that consumer with an automated telephone message. The court also found that this consent is passed on to a third party (i.e., a debt collector) and if the debt collector believes in good faith that its client has this consent, it may go ahead and call.

But don’t start cheering yet.

In West Virginia, the Putnam County Circuit Court will soon hear a case filed by a consumer, Louie Lovejoy, against Enhanced Recovery Company LLC, a debt collector the plaintiff alleges engaged in “violations of the state consumer credit and protection act, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy,” according to the West Virginia Record.  The plaintiff alleges that Enhanced Recovery continued to place automated outbound calls to him even after he retained an attorney, something state law prohibits.

“According to the complaint, the defendant began engaging in collection attempts through phone calls and written communication to Lovejoy both before and after Lovejoy had retained counsel,” reported the West Virginia Record. “Lovejoy says the phone calls were made by an automated recording system and because he was not able to talk to a real person, he attempted but was unable to inform the defendant he had retained an attorney.”

The case, Putnam County Circuit Court Civil Action No. 13-C-411, will likely involve a number of complex determinants, including whether state law can supersede the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, whether the company was notified that the plaintiff hired an attorney, and whose responsibility it was to inform them and how.