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

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

Federal Court Holds Mobile App Platform Did Not Make or Initiate Invitational Text Messages, Grants Summary Judgment

In a recent decision by the Southern District of California, summary judgment was entered in favor of a second-hand fashion retailer, Poshmark, in a putative class action. The court concluded that the user of the app, not Poshmark, had “made the calls” that invited the plaintiff to use the mobile app. See Reichman v. Poshmark, Inc., No. 16-2359, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73769, at *11 (S.D. Cal. May 15, 2017). Continue reading

Revocation of Consent Must Be Reasonable and Recollected

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

Northern District of California Rejects First Amendment Challenge to the TCPA

A federal judge in the Northern District of California recently denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action accusing Facebook of violating the TCPA by sending text messages reminding users about their friends’ birthdays. In so doing, the court rejected Facebook’s First Amendment challenge and found that the TPCA survived strict scrutiny. Brickman v. Facebook, Inc., No. 16-0751, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11849 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2017).  Continue reading

Ninth Circuit Rules on Standing, Revocation of Consent

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

Mobile App Operator Not Liable Under TCPA

In an important decision applying the FCC’s July 2015 Declaratory Ruling, a district court recently dismissed TCPA claims against Life360, a mobile application operator. See Cour v. Life360, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-00805-TEH (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2016). The decision provides critical guidance as to when users of a mobile app – rather than the mobile app provider – will be deemed to initiate the text messages, for purposes of assessing TCPA compliance. Continue reading

Bradley Andreozzi and Justin Kay Discuss TCPA in Modern Healthcare

TCPA Blog contributors Bradley Andreozzi and Justin Kay were recently featured in a Modern Healthcare article about a class action targeting Prospect Medical Group’s Southern California Hospital at Culver City. The suit alleges that the hospital violated the TCPA when its patient department called the plaintiff’s cell phone without the requisite consent in an effort to collect on a debt for services rendered at the facility. The article examined how the hospital became one of the first providers to be sued following the Federal Communications Commission’s July 2015 Omnibus ruling that narrowed the FCC’s reading of the scope of the required prior express consent for automated calls to patients. Continue reading

FCC Releases Order Denying Club Texting’s 2009 Petition on Text Broadcaster Liability Standards

On January 11, 2016, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (“Bureau”) acted on a petition filed in 2009, and denied Club Texting, Inc.’s (“Club Texting”) petition for declaratory ruling, which asked the FCC to clarify that text broadcasters are subject to the same TCPA liability standard as that applied to fax broadcasters. See In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991; Petition of Club Texting, Inc. for Declaratory Ruling, Order, CG Docket 02-278 (Jan. 11, 2016) (“Jan. 11 Order”); see also Club Texting, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Text Broadcasters Are Not “Senders of Text Messages Under § 227(b)(1) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, CG Docket 02-278 (Apr. 25, 2009) (“Club Texting Petition”).

Continue reading

Human Intervention After The FCC’s Declaratory Ruling

A recent decision illustrates the uncertainties wrought by the “case-by-case” approach of the FCC’s July 2015 Declaratory Ruling when applied in litigation. In Sherman v. Yahoo, Inc., the plaintiff challenged Yahoo’s messenger service, which converted instant messages submitted by Yahoo users from their computers to text messages that would be received on mobile devices. Plaintiff claimed that the Yahoo service sent her mobile device an unsolicited welcome message using automated dialing technology in violation of the TCPA. Yahoo moved for summary judgment, arguing that its service was not an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) as defined by the TCPA because messages could not be sent without human intervention.

Continue reading

Who Bears Liability For That Call Or Fax? Courts Continue To Wrestle With Direct And Vicarious Liability

Whenever more than one individual or entity is allegedly involved in the “sending” of a fax or the making of a call or text, two key questions in the litigation are: (i) what must be pleaded to state a claim against each party and (ii) if indeed there was a violation, who bears responsibility for it?

Continue reading