Michael P. Daly, Author at TCPA Blog

Michael Daly

Mike Daly has spent two decades defending, counseling and championing clients that interact with consumers. His practice focuses on defending class actions, handling critical motions and appeals, and maximizing the defensibility of marketing and enforceability of contracts. Clients large and small have trusted him to protect their businesses, budgets and brands in complex cases across the country.

View the full bio for Michael Daly at the Faegre Drinker website.

Articles by Michael Daly:

FTSA Litigation Trends: Federal and State Courts Diverge on Retroactivity

At a Glance

HB 761 amended the FTSA, requiring a 15-day notice-and-cure period before a plaintiff can sue for damages from text message solicitations.
HB 761 also stated that it should be applied retroactively to cases that were styled as class actions so long as a class had not been certified before HB 761’s effective date.
That retroactivity provision has caused a split between Florida’s federal courts and its state courts.
Two federal courts have applied HB 761 retroactively, dismissing class actions because a class had not been certified before HB 761’s effective date.
But two Florida state courts have refused to apply HB 761 retroactively, holding that applying a pre-suit notice requirement retroactively would violate due process.
Defendants will likely respond by invoking HB 761 retroactively only against unnamed class members (e.g., by striking class allegations) to avoid due process issues.
Relatedly, Florida state courts have sent mixed signals on TCPA/FTSA standing.
Until appellate courts provide clarity, defendants in Florida state court will likely have more success with standing arguments at the class certification stage.

Continue reading “FTSA Litigation Trends: Federal and State Courts Diverge on Retroactivity“

District of Oregon Finds that Ninth Circuit’s Chennette Presumption Does Not Materially Impact Class Certification Criteria

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon recently issued a significant opinion regarding the legal framework for certifying Do-Not-Call claims. See Mattson v. New Penn Financial LLC, 2023 WL 8452659 (D. Or. 2023).

The genesis of the case was the alleged receipt of unsolicited calls to a cellphone number listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Central to the lawsuit was the plaintiff’s motion to certify a class of individuals who had allegedly received similar calls from the defendant. Id.

Continue reading “District of Oregon Finds that Ninth Circuit’s Chennette Presumption Does Not Materially Impact Class Certification Criteria”

Recent Rulings Highlight the Importance of Challenging Imprecise TCPA Class Definitions

A recent ruling in Sowders v. Scratch Financial, Inc., No. 23-0056, 2023 WL 7525900 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 14, 2023), emphasizes the need to challenge overbroad and unascertainable class definitions in TCPA suits. In that case, the defendant’s motions to dismiss resulted in a ruling that effectively narrowed the plaintiff’s proposed class definition.

Continue reading “Recent Rulings Highlight the Importance of Challenging Imprecise TCPA Class Definitions”

This Blog Goes to Eleven

Today marks ten years and counting of the FCC’s revised TCPA rules—and, not coincidentally, of this blog. Over the last decade, more than 50 contributors have shared more than 500 posts about the statute’s restrictions, the FCC’s rules and regulations, the states’ enactment of so-called “mini” TCPAs, and the many twists and turns in the seemingly endless stream of litigation—much of it concocted by a colorful cast of recurring characters—arising under all of them. We have enjoyed sharing our insights and meeting our readers, and we can’t wait to see what the next ten years will bring.

Ninth Circuit “Voices” Its Rejection of Plaintiff’s Attempt to Expand TCPA

The Ninth Circuit recently rejected the argument that a text message qualifies as an “artificial or prerecorded voice” under the TCPA. See Trim v. Reward Zone USA LLC, 2023 WL 5025264, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20445 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023).

There, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had violated the TCPA by sending text messages with promotional offers without her consent. Specifically, she alleged that the defendant had sent her a message stating: “Hiya Lucine, you are a valuable customer. In these tough times, let us [] reimburse [you] for your shopping needs.”

As you may recall, the TCPA prohibits making “any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using . . . an artificial or prerecorded voice . . . to any telephone number assigned to a [ ] cellular telephone service. . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

Continue reading “Ninth Circuit “Voices” Its Rejection of Plaintiff’s Attempt to Expand TCPA”

Florida Governor Signs FTSA Amendments Into Law

Yesterday, Florida’s Governor signed HB 761, which makes significant changes to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (“FTSA,” Fla. Stat. § 501.059).

HB 761 states that these amendments will not only take effect immediately, but also apply retroactively to any pending FTSA action styled as a class action but was not certified as such before the Governor signed the law. But there are already signs that the law’s retroactivity provision will face challenges, including one court’s recent observation that the constitutionality of that particular provision is unclear. See Murray v. Riders Share, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-2329-PGB-DCI, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83388, at *3 n.2 (M.D. Fla. May 12, 2023) (“Retroactive application of a civil statute ordinarily transgresses constitutional limitations on legislative power ‘if the statute impairs vested rights, creates new obligations, or imposes new penalties.’”).

Continue reading “Florida Governor Signs FTSA Amendments Into Law”

Florida Appeals Court Finds Lack of Standing in State Court TCPA Case

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal recently reversed class certification and directed dismissal, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish any concrete harm from an alleged violation of the TCPA and thereby lacked standing. Pet Supermarket, Inc. v. Eldridge, No. 3D21-1174, 2023 WL 3327267 (3d Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May 10, 2023). (Note that this opinion has yet to be released for publication in the permanent law reports, as a motion for rehearing, clarification, or certification, or a petition for review, may be pending.)

Eldridge had visited the defendant’s store, where he learned about a promotion in which customers could win free dog food for a year if they enrolled in the defendant’s text-message program. After enrolling, Eldridge immediately received two texts, and then received an additional five texts over a period of six months. All the texts contained the message “Reply STOP to end” and concerned promotional or advertisement information.

Continue reading “Florida Appeals Court Finds Lack of Standing in State Court TCPA Case”

Florida District Courts Increasingly Staying FTSA Cases as 11th Circuit Threatens to Overturn Salcedo

Plaintiffs’ attempts to keep FTSA cases venued in Florida state courts are being upended by the Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision to revisit en banc its Article III standing precedent in single-text message cases. Previously, Florida district courts were generally remanding such cases to state court. Since then, a couple of district courts have remanded cases to state court, but several more have stayed cases pending the Eleventh Circuit’s decisions in two pending appeals, Drazen v. Pinto, No. 21-10199 (11th Cir.) and Muccio v. Global Motivation, Inc., No. 23-10081 (11th Cir.). And the momentum appears to be in favor of staying such cases.

On April 11, Judge Honeywell of the Middle District of Florida granted a defendant’s unopposed motion to stay in Read v. Coty DTC Holdings, LLC, pending the resolution of Drazen and Muccio. No. 8:23-cv-00662-CEH-MRM, 2023 WL 3431820 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2023). The plaintiff in Read had alleged receipt of a single text message in violation of the FTSA. Eleventh Circuit precedent on Article III standing holds that a plaintiff’s alleged receipt of a single unsolicited text message in violation of the TCPA does not meet the injury requirement for Article III standing. See Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162, 1172 (11th Cir. 2019). However, the Eleventh Circuit recently vacated a panel decision that had reaffirmed that precedent to re-evaluate its application en banc. See Drazen. Additionally, another appeal before the Eleventh Circuit will address whether Article III injury exists for plaintiffs alleging receipt of multiple texts, not just one, and who allege a violation of the FTSA, not the TCPA. See Muccio. Against this backdrop, the Read court found that the Eleventh Circuit was an outlier with the holdings of other Courts of Appeal that have found standing does exist based on an unsolicited text message. Additionally, the court noted that the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent on this issue appears to have been called into question due to the pending appeals in Drazen and Muccio. As such, the court stayed the case.

Continue reading “Florida District Courts Increasingly Staying FTSA Cases as 11th Circuit Threatens to Overturn Salcedo“

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Holds That Differentiating Service Is an “Advertisement” and Defendant’s Intent in Sending Fax Is Irrelevant

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reaffirmed that an objective “four corners” standard governs whether faxes are “advertisements” that must meet the TCPA’s consent requirement. Separately, any fax that compares the sender’s product or service to others could constitute an “advertisement” under the Court’s decision.

Background

In Steven A. Conner DPM, P.C. v. Fox Rehabilitation Services, P.C., 2023 WL 2226781 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2023), Plaintiff (a podiatrist) alleged that Defendant sent unsolicited faxes to his office during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to promote its in-home physical therapy services. Plaintiff had never had contact with or made a referral to Fox Rehab before receiving the faxes. Fox Rehab testified at trial that it had sent the faxes to Plaintiff as part of a blast campaign to inform referring healthcare providers that it was adhering to recently issued public guidelines for stemming the spread of coronavirus. Since Fox Rehab admitted to having sent the faxes, the sole issue for the Court was whether they were “unsolicited advertisements” under the TCPA.

Continue reading “Eastern District of Pennsylvania Holds That Differentiating Service Is an “Advertisement” and Defendant’s Intent in Sending Fax Is Irrelevant”