Articles by :


Another Day, Another ATDS Suit Dismissed in E.D. Pa.

Plaintiff Andrew Perrong is no stranger to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and on September 18, 2023, yet another of Perrong’s suits was partially dismissed on ATDS grounds.  Perrong v. Bradford, et al., No. 2:23-cv-00510, 2023 WL 6119281 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2023).  You can read our prior coverage of Perrong decisions here and here.

In this instance, Perrong filed a TCPA action against Pennsylvania House of Representatives member Matthew Bradford; he later filed an Amended Complaint adding Cleo Communications, LLC, which placed the calls on behalf of Representative Bradford.  Perrong alleged that in 2019 and 2020, he received five phone calls, four of which were not answered or were answered to dead air.  A fifth phone call included a recording of Representative Bradford, inviting Perrong to participate in a virtual information session on opportunities to connect Pennsylvanians to healthcare coverage.  Perrong asserted three TCPA claims against Representative Bradford and Cleo Communications: the placing of a prerecorded message, use of an ATDS, and the placing of a telemarketing call.

Continue reading “Another Day, Another ATDS Suit Dismissed in E.D. Pa.”

Seventh Circuit’s back-to-back rulings shed light on TCPA’s applicability to unsolicited faxes

The 7th Circuit recently issued a decision in Smith v. First Hospital Laboratories, Inc., holding that in some “narrow situations” a fax offering to buy a product or service might be considered an advertisement under the TCPA if the fax also refers to a related offer to sell another product or service.  2023 WL 509070, *6 (7th Cir. 2023).

Smith is a decision driven by its particular facts.  The plaintiff, a chiropractor1, received two unsolicited faxes from First Hospital Laboratories (FHL), a company that provides health monitoring and screening services through a network of medical providers who act as independent contractors.  Id. at *1. The faxes invited plaintiff to join FHL’s network of preferred medical providers.  Id.  The faxes also stated that FHL would pay plaintiff a fixed rate for each service he rendered to one of FHL’s clients.  Id.  FHL would refer clients to the plaintiff only if he agreed to allow FHL to invoice the clients directly for the services and neither attempted to obtain more than the fixed rate nor disclosed to the clients the fixed rates that FHL was paying the plaintiff for the services.  Id. at *4.  The clear implication was that FHL would profit by charging the clients more than the fixed rate it was paying the plaintiff to render the services.  Id.

Continue reading “Seventh Circuit’s back-to-back rulings shed light on TCPA’s applicability to unsolicited faxes”