Category Archives: Prior Express Consent

Class Decertified: Wireless Provider’s Data Demonstrates Individualized Issues of Consent

February 26, 2018
, and
Class Certification, Prior Express Consent, Text Messages

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently decertified a class after the defendant, Yahoo! Inc., submitted new evidence showing that tens of thousands of putative class members may have consented to receive the text messages at issue. See Johnson v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 14-2028 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2018).

The dispute relates to the Yahoo! Messenger service, which allows Yahoo! users to send text messages to cell phones. After a user would send an initial text message to a specific cell phone number, Yahoo! would send an additional “Welcome Message” text message to that number: “A Yahoo! user has sent you a message. Reply to that SMS to respond. Reply INFO to this SMS for help or go to y.ahoo.it/imsms.” The plaintiff alleges that these Welcome Messages violate the TCPA based on a theory that Yahoo! did not have the “prior express consent” of the “called party” (the third party to whom the Yahoo! user had sent the original text message). Continue reading   »

District Courts Debate Whether Providing a Phone Number Establishes Consent

November 6, 2017
and
Consent, Prior Express Consent, Telemarketing

Multiple district courts have recently examined whether, and in what circumstances, providing one’s phone number suffices to establish consent to be called under the TCPA. The issue is complicated, turning on whether prior express consent must be in writing, a determination which, in turn, requires examination of whether the call in question constitutes “telemarketing” or “advertising.”

Continue reading   »

District Court Finds Text Message With Link To Sender’s App Might Qualify As Advertising

October 24, 2017
and
Consent, Prior Express Consent, Telemarketing, Text Messages

As businesses increasingly elect to use text messaging to communicate with consumers, they should be mindful that text messages are a frequent target of TCPA claims. FCC regulations require different degrees of consent depending on whether communications are commercial or informational; whereas businesses must have only “prior express consent” for purely informational texts, they must have “prior express written consent” for texts that include an advertisement or constitute telemarketing. (Certain other texts, for example those sent for an emergency purpose, are exempt from those requirements.) That begs the question: what qualifies as advertising or telemarketing such that the higher degree of consent is required? Continue reading   »

District Court Finds a Text Message Sent to Complete a Transaction is Not Telemarketing

August 8, 2017
and
Consent, General, Prior Express Consent, Telemarketing, Text Messages

As customers increasingly elect text messaging as their preferred means of communication during online ordering, such messages can raise the risk of a potential TCPA claim asserting that the text is “telemarketing” for which the customer did not provide prior express written consent, as required by the statute. A recent and informative decision rejected such a claim, finding that such messages are not telemarketing if they simply “complete a transaction” initiated by the customer. Continue reading   »

Revocation of Consent Must Be Reasonable and Recollected

May 10, 2017
, and
Consent, Prior Express Consent, Revocation, Text Messages

Two recent decisions rebuffed TCPA claims arising from calls or text messages that were received after the called parties had allegedly revoked their consent. The decisions reinforce that plaintiffs who intend to pursue such claims must: (1) revoke their consent in a reasonable rather than contrived manner; and (2) support their claims with specific facts rather than conclusory allegations. Continue reading   »

Are Insurance Renewal Notifications Telemarketing? Maybe.

April 17, 2017
, and
Consent, General, Healthcare, Prior Express Consent, Telemarketing

As discussed here, the Central District of California recently granted summary judgment in favor of an insurance company after finding that a prerecorded call to the insured’s mobile phone, which reminded her to review her health plan options for the following year, was not telemarketing and therefore did not require “prior express written consent.” See Smith v. Blue Shield of Cal. Life & Health Ins. Co., No. SACV 16-00108-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017).

But just a few weeks ago, a different judge in the Central District reached the opposite conclusion in a similar case, and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Flores v. Access Ins. Co., No. 2:15-cv-02883-CAS-AGR (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017) (available here). These two decisions illustrate how courts continue to grapple with the distinction between “telemarketing” and “informational” calls. Continue reading   »

Looking Lonely: Commenters Show Little Love for Serial Plaintiffs’ Petition

March 21, 2017
and
Consent, FCC Actions, Prior Express Consent

The initial comments are in on the Petition of serial plaintiffs Craig Moskowitz and Craig Cunningham to require written consent for autodialed informational calls, and reactions are overwhelmingly negative. A diverse group of trade associations, nonprofits, medical institutions, and others flooded the docket with over thirty formal comments opposing the Petition. In addition to these formal comments, there were several short, informal comments submitted via the FCC’s “express” filing system by employees of credit unions and other financial institutions opposing the Petition. Just three comments expressed support. Continue reading   »

FCC Releases Public Notice on Petition to Eliminate Exceptions to Written Consent Requirement

February 13, 2017
and
FCC Actions, Prior Express Consent

On February 8, 2017, the FCC issued a public notice seeking comment on a petition for rulemaking and declaratory ruling (the “Petition”) filed by Craig Moskowitz and Craig Cunningham (the “Petitioners”). The Petition seeks the initiation of a rulemaking to overturn the FCC’s allegedly “improper interpretation that ‘prior express consent’ includes implied consent resulting from a party’s providing a telephone number to the caller.” Continue reading   »

Ninth Circuit Rules on Standing, Revocation of Consent

February 3, 2017

Consent, Prior Express Consent, Standing, Text Messages

In a closely-watched appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment on claims alleging that text messages were sent in violation of the TCPA and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The Ninth Circuit held that the receipt of a text message was sufficient to confer standing upon plaintiff for purpose of his TCPA claim, but insufficient to confer standing as to his UCL claim. The Court otherwise affirmed the summary disposition of plaintiff’s claim on the ground that plaintiff had not clearly shown his alleged revocation of consent to receive defendants’ text messages. Continue reading   »

Central District of California Holds That Insurance Renewal Notifications Are Not Telemarketing Under the TCPA

January 24, 2017

Consent, Emergency Purpose Exception, Healthcare, Prior Express Consent, Standing, Summary Judgment, Telemarketing

The Central District of California recently granted summary judgment to a health insurer after finding that a pre-recorded message delivered to the insured’s cell phone reminding her to review her health plan options for the coming year was not telemarketing. Smith v. Blue Shield of Cal. Life & Health Ins. Co., No. 16cv108 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017), ECF No. 73.

In Smith, the plaintiff completed an application for health insurance through California’s Affordable Care Act Healthcare Marketplace, Covered California. As part of that application process, Plaintiff provided her cell phone number as “the best number at which to contact her.” As required by law, the insurance was set to automatically renew for 2016, and in 2015, Blue Shield attempted to contact Smith by sending written materials to her mailing address (as also required by law) to inform her of the changes to her plan and provide her with alternatives. Plaintiff’s materials, however, were returned to Blue Shield as undeliverable. As with other insureds whose materials were returned, Blue Shield followed up with a pre-recorded message stating in relevant part: “This is an important message from Blue Shield of California. It’s time to review your 2016 health plan options and see what’s new. Earlier this month, we mailed you information about your 2016 plan and benefit changes. It compares your current health plan to other options from Blue Shield. You can also find out more online at blueshieldca.com. If you have not received your information packet in the mail, or if you have any questions, please call the number on the back of your member ID card.” Plaintiff received the call on December 3, 2015; on December 6, 2015, she completed an application for a different insurance plan for the 2016 year. Continue reading   »