In Johnson v. Yahoo!, Inc., No. 14-2028 (N.D. Ill.), the plaintiff alleged that Yahoo! violated the TCPA by automatically texting her after pulling her number from a database of stored numbers. The trial court initially denied Yahoo!’s motion for summary judgment because—based on FCC decisions from 2003, 2008 and 2012—it believed that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the dialing equipment qualified as an ATDS. During the pendency of the case, however, the FCC issued its 2015 Declaratory Ruling & Order, which, as our regular readers well know, was appealed to and eventually rejected by the D.C. Circuit. Continue reading
After several proceedings and requests for comment, the FCC has approved the creation of a single, centralized reassigned numbers database—a new resource to identify and avoid calling reassigned numbers. Ideally, the proposed database will help businesses in identifying numbers that are being recycled before they are called, thus helping to cut down on the number of calls consumers receive by mistake. This alert outlines the framework of the new database, including access, administration, types of information collected, usage, and potential costs and benefits.
Nearly three years ago, in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the Supreme Court held that claims are not mooted by unaccepted offers of complete relief under Rule 68 because they create neither an “obligation” to provide nor an “entitlement” to receive any relief. But the Court expressly left open the possibility that depositing the full amount of a plaintiff’s individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff might be enough. Continue reading
Two courts recently examined whether professional plaintiffs had standing to assert TCPA claims. Their decisions betray a continuing confusion concerning what it is that gives plaintiffs—particularly serial plaintiffs—standing to sue. See Cunningham v. Florio, No. 17-0839, 2018 WL 4473792 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2018); Morris v. Hornet Corp., No. 17-0350, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170945 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2018). Continue reading
Please join our TCPA Team and distinguished panelists in our Washington, D.C. office on the afternoon of November 14th to discuss the evolving regulatory landscape, best practices for mitigating risk, and strategies for defending suits brought under the TCPA. The FCC regulations that added fuel to the TCPA fire—and, perhaps not coincidentally, this blog—will soon enjoy their fifth anniversary. And yet class actions and compliance questions continue to mount. Our experienced regulatory and class action counsel will discuss these and other important issues with a number of special guests, including:
- Peggy Daley, Berkley Research Group
- Robert DeWitte, Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC
- Mary Ellen Kleiman, National Association of Chain Drug Stores
- William Maxson, Federal Trade Commission
- Joseph Wender, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of U.S. Sen. Edward J. Markey
- Hassan Zavareei, Tycko & Zavareei LLP
CLE credits will be available and a cocktail reception will be held after the conference. If you would like to attend, please contact us at TCPAteam@dbr.com.
As discussed here on the Blog, the Ninth Circuit ruled last Friday in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC that equipment need not have the capacity to dial numbers randomly or sequentially to be an ATDS under the TCPA. Rather, according to the Ninth Circuit, it is sufficient for equipment to have the capacity “to store numbers to be called . . . and to dial such numbers automatically (even if the system must be turned on or triggered by a person)” to be an ATDS.
Law360 also published an article addressing the impact of the decision entitled “Ninth Circuit Heats Up TCPA Debate With Broad Autodialer Take,” and TCPA Blog contributor Justin Kay was quoted in the article. Continue reading
As we discussed last year, the Second Circuit has held that consumers cannot unilaterally revoke consent that was provided as part of a bilateral contract. See Reyes v. Lincoln Automotive Fin. Servs., 861 F.3d 51 (2017). In doing so, it explained that it is “black letter law” that a “party may not alter a bilateral
contract . . . without the consent of a counterparty,” and that nothing in the TCPA purports to “permit a consumer to revoke his consent to be called when that consent forms part of a bargained-for exchange.” Although this seemingly straightforward statement is now settled within the Second Circuit, see, e.g., Harris v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 15-0546, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140317 (D. Conn. Aug. 7, 2018), it remains unsettled elsewhere. Continue reading
The Northern District of Illinois recently granted a motion to decertify a class of TCPA plaintiffs in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018), which held that the equitable tolling doctrine does not apply to successive class actions. See Practice Mgmt. Support Servs., Inc. v. Cirque du Soleil, Inc., No. 14-2032, 2018 WL 3659349 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2018). In doing so, the court observed that plaintiffs can no longer “wait out” a statute of limitations and then “piggy back on an earlier, timely filed class action.” Id. at *1. Continue reading
Filing TCPA actions has become a form of sport for certain plaintiffs. In TCPA Blog’s latest Law360 column, our TCPA Team addresses the manufacturing of TCPA claims, which came to a head in a recent case involving an unabashed professional plaintiff who purchased at least 35 cellphones and numbers with the sole purpose of receiving calls to recycled numbers and then filing suit and cashing in. The article notes the growing use (and abuse) of the TCPA by such plaintiffs: