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:
Our regular readers will no doubt be familiar with the one-to-one-consent and logically-and-topically-related requirements the FCC (under the prior administration) had tried to impose as a way to close what it had described as a “lead generator loophole.” On Friday, the FCC (now under a new administration) postponed the effective date of the rule, the validity of which was still being reviewed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Later that day, the Eleventh Circuit issued its ruling in that appeal, finding that the rule is invalid. As a result, in the absence of further appellate review of that ruling, the proposed rule is no more.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision should be read by anyone who litigates in this space, or indeed in any space where alleged liability is premised on supposed violations of federal or state regulations. The main question on appeal was whether the FCC had statutory authority to impose the new one-to-one-consent and logically-and-topically-related requirements. The Eleventh Circuit found that it did not, as the FCC only has statutory authority to “implement” the TCPA, and the plain language of the TCPA “requires only ‘prior express consent’ — not ‘prior express consent’ plus.” Opinion at 14. As the Eleventh Circuit explained, “implement” means “to complete,” “perform” and “carry into effect,” not to “alter.” Id.
Continue reading “Whirlwind of Activity Ends With Eleventh Circuit Invalidating FCC’s Lead Generation Rule”
Depending on whether you’re a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty kind of person, plaintiff and defendant both won or both lost when a judge in the Northern District of Illinois recently denied in one fell swoop both the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Murtoff v. My Eye Doctor, LLC, 21-2607, 2024 WL 4278033 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2024).
In a case involving health examination reminder calls to someone who was not a current patient, the plaintiff alleged that she received unwanted telemarketing telephone calls from MyEyeDr. leaving pre-recorded voice messages to remind her that she was due for her annual eye exam, in violation of the TCPA. MyEyeDr. filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that these calls were not telemarketing but rather fell under the Health Care Rule exception to the TCPA, which protects prerecorded healthcare calls (1) that concern a health-related product or service; (2) made by or on behalf of a health care provider to a patient with whom there is an established health care treatment relationship; and (3) that concern the individual health care needs of the patient recipient.
Continue reading “Inherently Individualized Issues of Fact Cause Court to Deny Dismissal and Certification in Case Targeting Health Care Calls”
A Texas federal court recently granted summary judgment for the defendant in a TCPA putative class action, finding that prerecorded calls to schedule a pest inspection were informational rather than telemarketing. Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00675, 2024 WL 3851229 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2024). This ruling provides a helpful reminder for defendants to carefully assess the nature of prerecorded or autodialed calls in every case, given that informational calls require only “prior express consent” as compared to the detailed, written consent needed for telemarketing calls.
In Bradford, the plaintiff had entered into a two-year pest control service agreement, which the parties renewed for multiple one-year terms. The agreement provided for free annual inspections, with no renewal obligation, during both the initial term and each renewal term. If a customer could not schedule an annual inspection to take place until after the expiration of the initial (or renewal) term, the defendant offered a 30-day grace period to schedule the inspection.
Continue reading “Texas Federal Court Finds Prerecorded Calls to Schedule Pest Inspections Were Informational, Not Telemarketing”
In an unpublished opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a “list-mode” theory of liability that had been advanced by prolific professional plaintiff Andrew Perrong. Perrong v. Montgomery Cnty. Democratic Comm., No. 23-2415, 2024 WL 1651274, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9238 (3d Cir. Apr. 8, 2024) (unpublished).
Defendants (including the local committee of the Democratic Party) allegedly called Perrong, addressing him by name and urging him to vote for Democratic candidates in his county’s general elections. Perrong argued that the defendants had used an ATDS—and by doing so had violated the TCPA—because their equipment had allegedly used a number generator to determine the order in which to call phone numbers from a stored list of previously compiled voters.
Continue reading “Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of List-Mode TCPA Claims”
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“
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”
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”
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.
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”
Ever since the Supreme Court confirmed that the TCPA’s autodialer restrictions apply only to devices that generate numbers randomly or sequentially, the plaintiffs’ bar has been digging deep for new theories of liability to fill the void. One example of that is Hall v. Smosh Dot Com, in which the plaintiff posits that minors cannot provide consent for purposes of the TCPA, and as a result that calls to minors with DNC-registered numbers necessarily violate the statute. That theory is hard to square with both tort law (which tells us that minors consent to more intrusive things all the time) and contract law (which tells us that contracts with minors are voidable rather than void). But the Ninth Circuit recently handed Hall a procedural win in the case—albeit one that should end up being Pyrrhic.
The case arises from five text messages sent over the course of seven months. Undeterred by the fact that her teenage son had requested the messages, the Plaintiff filed suit—in a class action, of course—under the TCPA’s DNC provisions. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). The trial court dismissed the case for lack of Article III standing, finding that the Plaintiff had failed to allege that she was either the “actual user” of the phone or the “actual recipient” of the messages. The Plaintiff appealed, arguing that she could have Article III standing even if she was neither of those things. The Ninth Circuit has now agreed, reversed the trial court, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Finds That One Text Can Cause Concrete Harm, Remands for Decision Regarding Whether Minors Can Consent”
