A new case out of Indiana, Sanford v. Navient Solutions, LLC, 2018 WL 4699890 (S.D. IN Oct. 01, 2018), underscores the importance of delving into the details of the FCC materials on which plaintiffs rely to support their claims.
In Sanford, relatively straightforward allegations—the defendant’s continued use of autodialed calls after the plaintiff revoked consent—were complicated by the fact that the federal government owned the debt at issue in the calls. The TCPA prohibits “mak[ing] any call (other than a call made for emergency purpose or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice” to “a cellular telephone service . . . unless such call is made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). 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
As we previously reported here, the court in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, No. 14-56834, 2018 WL 4495553 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2018) recently expanded the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system,” at least within the Ninth Circuit. And in response, the FCC issued a Public Notice just last week (covered here) seeking further comment on how to interpret the ATDS definition in light of Marks. The comment period closes on October 24, 2018. Continue reading
On October 3, 2018, the FCC issued a Public Notice requesting further comment on “what constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system” under the terms of the TCPA in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, No. 14-56834, 2018 WL 4495553 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 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.
We previously discussed Hannabury v. Hilton Grand Vacation Co., LLC, a 2016 decision from the Western District of New York that held that TCPA claims do not survive a consumer’s death because penal claims extinguish at the party’s death and the TCPA is penal in nature. Continue reading
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
The very first clause in the TCPA is the definition of an Automatic Telephone Dialing System, which the statute defines as “equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” 47 USC 227(a)(1). Notwithstanding this limited definition, the Ninth Circuit today ruled in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC that an ATDS means more than what the statute says. It did so by reordering the aforementioned definition’s words and replacing a conjunctive “and” with a disjunctive “or,” and holding that the term ATDS actually “means equipment which has the capacity—(1) to store numbers to be called or (2) to produce numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator—and to dial such numbers automatically (even if the system must be turned on or triggered by a person).” (emphasis added). By separating and reordering these clauses to de-couple the “random or sequential number generator” requirement from the storage requirement, the Ninth Circuit appears to have re-introduced (at least in the Ninth Circuit, and at least for now) the same over breadth and uncertainty that the D.C. Circuit appeared to rectify with its decision in ACA International. 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