The Northern District of Illinois recently denied a motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action, and in doing so found that the plaintiff had not agreed to arbitrate the dispute when navigating through one of the defendants’ websites. See Anand v. Heath, et al., No. 19-0016, 2019 WL 2716213 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2019).
The plaintiff in Anand registered and completed a survey for a gift card on a website owned and operated by a subsidiary of one of the defendants. As part of her registration, she submitted her contact information, including her telephone number. After she received allegedly unsolicited telemarketing calls, the plaintiff filed a putative class action and two of the defendants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the website’s terms and conditions.
Recently, an Eastern District of Michigan court entered summary judgment in favor of a defendant upon finding that it had neither transmitted nor caused the transmission of the fax at issue. In Garner Properties & Management, LLC v. Marblecast of Michigan, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that it had received an unsolicited fax that referenced the products of two companies: Marblecast of Michigan and American Woodmark. The plaintiff sued both companies in a putative class action. American Woodmark eventually moved for summary judgment and argued that the plaintiff had failed to offer evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that it had “sent” the fax at issue. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) (“It shall be unlawful for any . . . to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement, unless. . . .”) (emphasis added). In opposition, the plaintiff argued that American Woodmark was strictly liable as a sender under the TCPA because the fax had referenced its products. Continue reading
A federal district court in the Southern District of Florida joined a list of courts that have found a web-based text messaging platform to fall outside the purview of the TCPA due to the amount of human intervention required to send a text message. In Ramos v. Hopele of Fort Lauderdale, LLC, et al., the plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging that the defendants violated the TCPA by sending her unsolicited text messages. The parties each moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff argued that the texting platform was, as a matter of law, an ATDS. The defendants argued that the web-based texting platform at issue did not meet the statutory definition of an ATDS because it cannot send text messages without human intervention. Continue reading
One of the central issues before the D.C. Circuit in ACA International v. FCC was whether the FCC’s vague and expansive definition of an ATDS would withstand judicial scrutiny. It did not, and as we explained at the time the decision was issued, the D.C. Circuit set aside not only the portion of the FCC’s July 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order pertaining to ATDS, but also the FCC’s prior rulings dating back to 2003. Following ACA International, and while the FCC considers how to amend its now-invalidated prior rulings, the plaintiffs’ bar has attempted to narrow the reach of ACA International, arguing that the D.C. Circuit set aside only the 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order, and that the validity of the FCC’s prior rulings was not under review. Just as the D.C. Circuit rejected this argument, district courts across the country continue to reject this argument, most recently a federal district court in the Central District of California. Continue reading
One of the central issues that was before the D.C. Circuit in ACA International v. FCC was whether the term “called party” refers to the intended or the unintended recipient of a call. In its July 10, 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order, the FCC interpreted the term to be the current “subscriber” on the account to which the phone number is assigned or “the non-subscriber customary user of the phone.” Under this interpretation, businesses that try in good faith to contact consumers who have consented to receive such calls face significant liability with minimal recourse, when those calls reach someone else. The D.C. Circuit set aside the FCC’s “treatment of reassigned numbers as whole,” which includes its interpretation of called party. In light of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, the FCC is currently seeking comment on critical TCPA issues with an eye toward taking a much broader view of the TCPA landscape than it did in its 2015 TCPA Order. In the meantime, one business involved in a TCPA action is seeking indemnification from the consumer it intended to reach in making the calls that form the basis of the TCPA action against it. Continue reading
As we previously reported, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission recently issued a joint announcement regarding two events “aimed at furthering the fight against illegal robocalls and caller ID spoofing.” The first event was a joint policy forum that was held on March 23, 2018. The second event, which will be held on April 23, 2018, is an expo that will “showcase technologies, devices, and applications to minimize or eliminate the illegal robocalls consumers receive.”
The free and public expo will feature brief remarks from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen, as well as demonstrations from the following companies:
- Call Control
- Comcast Corporation
- Digitone Communications
- First Orion Corp.
- Neustar Communications
- Reverd LLC
- Scammer Jammer
- South Coast Telecom Inc.
- VTech Communications, Inc.
Additional information on the Stop Illegal Robocalls Expo is available here.
On March 7, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission issued a joint announcement regarding two upcoming events “aimed at furthering the fight against illegal robocalls and caller ID spoofing.” The announcement states that the events will “highlight cooperative efforts by the two agencies to combat illegal calls and promote innovative solutions to protect consumers.” The first event is a policy forum the two agencies will be co-hosting on March 23, 2018. The agencies intend to discuss “the regulatory challenges posed by illegal robocalls and what the FCC and FTC are doing to both protect consumers and encourage the development of private-sector solutions” at the forum. Additional information on the forum is available here. The second event is an expo the two agencies will be co-hosting on April 23, 2018. The Stop Illegal Robocalls Expo will showcase “technologies, devices, and applications to minimize or eliminate the illegal robocalls consumers receive.” Additional information on the expo, including how to participate in the expo, is available here.
A recent ruling from the Southern District of Ohio reveals the lengths to which some plaintiffs will go to manufacture TCPA claims – and how some courts are refusing to allow them to get away with such blatant manipulation. In Johansen v. National Gas & Electric LLC, No. 17-587, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208878 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2017), the plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the TCPA by calling him on three separate days even though his residential telephone number is on the National Do Not Call Registry. Before the court were two different motions filed by the defendant: a motion to compel arbitration and a motion to stay class discovery. Continue reading
Happy holidays to all the readers of the TCPA Blog! Below is a link to an article written by Michael Daly, Meredith Slawe, and John Yi on some recent decisions addressing contrived revocation of consent claims in text message based lawsuits.
Click here to read the full article.
One of the central issues in the consolidated appeal from the FCC’s July 10, 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order is whether the term “called party” refers to the intended or actual recipient of the call. The FCC’s Order interpreted the term “called party” to be the “subscriber” or “non-subscriber customary user” of the phone that was called, regardless of whether the caller meant to call someone else. Under this interpretation, businesses that in good faith attempt to contact consumers who have consented to receive such calls face significant liability when those calls reach someone else instead. Continue reading