In its October 2014 Final Order (the “Anda Order”), the Federal Communications Commission found that it had the statutory authority to regulate solicited faxes by promulgating a rule that requires an opt-out notice on all such faxes, but also found that because of reasonable confusion surrounding the regulation, there was good cause to waive the rule for fax senders who had previously sent solicited faxes without the opt-out notice. Continue reading “Briefing continues in cross appeals of Anda Order”
Justin O. Kay
Articles by Justin O. Kay:
The Big Chill: How The FCC’s Reading Of The TCPA Violates The First Amendment And Demands The Impossible
As the defense bar’s preeminent public resource on TCPA litigation and regulation, TCPA Blog has been invited to contribute a regular column to Law360. In the first such column, Bradley Andreozzi, Michael Daly, and Justin Kay discuss how the FCC’s interpretations of the TCPA violate the First Amendment rights. They write:
For an agency charged with regulating communications, the Federal Communications Commission has shown itself to be remarkably indifferent to First Amendment rights. In its recent brief in the consolidated appeal from its July 2015 omnibus ruling on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the FCC blandly assured the D.C. Circuit that “[e]very court” has held that the TCPA’s restrictions “easily pass muster under the First Amendment.” FCC Brief at 73-74. But it all but ignored that, rather than “directly challenge the TCPA’s constitutionality,” the petitioners in that appeal challenge the FCC’s “interpretations of the statute.” Id. at 72-73. On that issue, the D.C. Circuit will be writing on a clean slate, and the First Amendment challenges are serious.
They then highlight three serious First Amendment concerns, specifically that the FCC’s: (1) healthcare exemption restricts necessary speech; (2) recycled numbers ruling demands the impossible; and (3) ATDS interpretation is unconstitutionally vague.
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 “Bradley Andreozzi and Justin Kay Discuss TCPA in Modern Healthcare”
FCC Responds In Consolidated Appeal From Its July 2015 Omnibus Ruling
On Friday, January 15, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission filed its response to the arguments of the joint Petitioners in the consolidated appeal from its July 10, 2015 Omnibus Ruling. The Commission’s brief addresses the scope of its statutory authority, the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”), the meaning of “called party” and the potential liability for calls to recycled numbers, the ability to revoke consent, healthcare-related calls and the emergency purpose exception, and First Amendment challenges to the Commission’s interpretations of the statute. Its main arguments are summarized below.
Continue reading “FCC Responds In Consolidated Appeal From Its July 2015 Omnibus Ruling”
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?
Plaintiff’s Counsel Concedes Applicability of Arbitration Provision to TCPA Suit
The Eastern District of North Carolina recently granted a motion compelling arbitration in a TCPA case involving debt-collection calls allegedly made to plaintiff’s cellular telephone. See Rice v. Credit One Fin., No. 5:15-130, 2015 WL 4528933 (E.D.N.C. July 27, 2015). As previously covered here, here, and here, district courts around the country have demonstrated a willingness to order arbitration when TCPA claims fall within the scope of an arbitration agreement.
Continue reading “Plaintiff’s Counsel Concedes Applicability of Arbitration Provision to TCPA Suit”
First Challenge to July 10, 2015 Declaratory Ruling Already Filed
While the July 10, 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order (our summary of which can be found here) was released after the close of business on Friday, one petitioner has already filed a petition for review of the Declaratory Ruling: ACA International (the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals) (“ACA”). ACA filed its petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 10, and filed an amended petition on July 13. See ACA Int’l v. FCC, No. 15-1211 (D.C. Cir. filed July 10, 2015). ACA challenges the FCC’s “treatment of ‘capacity’ within the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system,” the FCC’s “treatment of predictive dialers,” and the FCC’s interpretation of the term “‘prior express consent’ (including its treatment of reassigned numbers.” Amended Petition for Review at 2-3, ACA Int’l v. FCC, No. 15-1211 (D.C. Cir. filed July 13, 2015), Doc. No. 1562251. ACA asks the DC Circuit to hold unlawful the FCC’s treatment of “capacity” and compel the FCC to “treat ‘capacity’ in a way that comports with a caller’s right of due process and free speech;” hold unlawful the FCC’s treatment of “predictive dialers” and compel the FCC to “treat them in a way that does not expand the statutory definition . . . beyond the definition that Congress enacted;” and hold unlawful the FCC’s treatment of “prior express consent, including the Commission’s treatment of reassigned numbers,” and compel the Commission to establish either a “viable safe harbor for autodialed ‘wrong number’ non-telemarketing calls to reassigned wireless numbers” or “define ‘called party’ as a call’s intended recipient.” Id. at 4-5.
FCC Issues Highly Anticipated Declaratory Ruling And Order on TCPA Issues
More than three weeks after its contentious June 18th open meeting, the FCC has finally issued its Declaratory Ruling and Order. Our TCPA team is reviewing its 138 pages (including separate statements from each Commissioner) and will report back shortly.
Illinois Federal Court Follows Eleventh Circuit’s Broad Definition of “Sender” in Blast Fax Case
Through prior posts (see here, here, and here), we have monitored the FCC’s somewhat perplexing distinction between calls and faxes in the context of analyzing direct and vicarious liability under the TCPA. Just two months ago, the FCC’s position, as originally set forth in a letter brief, was adopted by the Eleventh Circuit in Palm Beach Golf Center-Boca, Inc. v. Sarris, 781 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2015) (“Sarris”). The Sarris court held that “a person whose services are advertised in an unsolicited fax transmission, and on whose behalf the fax is transmitted, may be held liable directly” under the TCPA.
The FTC Is Looking For A Few Good Robocall Hackers
The FCC is not the only federal agency tasked with regulating telephone calls. The FTC also regulates telephone calls pursuant to the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) (16 C.F.R. § 310 et seq.). And while the scope of the TCPA and the TSR differs, the two sets of regulations overlap in a key area—prerecorded calls. See 47 C.F.R. § 227(b)(1); 16 C.F.R. § 310(b)(iv). As we have noted in a previous post, these regulations are not entirely consistent.
Continue reading “The FTC Is Looking For A Few Good Robocall Hackers”