William A. Wright, Rachel A. Dansky, Author at TCPA Blog

William Wright

William Wright represents clients in connection with complex business disputes, consumer class actions and emerging e-discovery and information governance issues. His experience includes a broad range of representative matters, including contract disputes, statutory class actions and corporate governance investigations. Bill defends large institutional clients in commercial litigation and routinely manages subject matter experts and consultants. He has appeared in numerous state and federal courts, and before private arbitration panels.

View the full bio for William Wright at the Faegre Drinker website.

Articles by William Wright:

Conflicting Decisions Illustrate Uncertainty as to Whether TCPA Extends to Text Messages

Two recent District Court opinions highlight an ongoing dispute as to whether the TCPA and its implementing regulations should apply to mobile (cellular) phones and text messages received thereon, as opposed to the more limited application of only traditional residential landlines.

The District Court for the Western District of Missouri recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss a TCPA claim, holding, among other things, that 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) broadly applies to text messages just as it applies to telephone calls. Eagle v. GVG Capital, LLC, No. 22-cv-00638-SRB, 2023 WL 1415615 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 31, 2023). 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) protects consumers from receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls, stating that no person or entity may make such calls to a residential telephone subscriber unless procedures are put in place to maintain a list of those who request not to be contacted that meet a set of minimum standards. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d).

In Eagle, the plaintiff sued Defendant GVG Capital, LLC, a marketing and lead generation company, on behalf of herself and three classes alleging multiple TCPA violations, including the delivery of solicitation text messages to the class despite their telephone numbers being on the National Do Not Call Registry (NDNCR) and alleging that those text messages did not include the sending defendant’s contact information. The plaintiff alleged that she uses her cellphone as her residential telephone number and had it registered with the NDNCR in 2012. In 2022, she began receiving text messages from a series of numbers asking if she was interested in selling her home and directing her to a real estate website, and plaintiff alleged that these messages did not contain the required contact information and disclosures prescribed by the TCPA.

Continue reading “Conflicting Decisions Illustrate Uncertainty as to Whether TCPA Extends to Text Messages”

First Circuit Rejects Classwide Settlement, Finds That Would-Be Class Representatives Could Not Adequately Represent Subclasses With Materially Different Claims

The First Circuit recently reversed the District of Massachusetts’s approval of a settlement award that improperly lacked any subclasses within the 4.8-million-person putative class, finding it “too difficult to determine whether the settlement treated class members equitably.” Murray v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, No. 21-1931, — F.4th — (1st Cir. Dec. 16, 2022).

The complaint alleged that defendant Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, d/b/a HelloFresh violated the TCPA through its marketing tactics by (1) calling former customers using an automated dialer, (2) calling former customers that were listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry, and (3) calling former customers that had asked HelloFresh not to contact them. The named plaintiffs—through a single plaintiff’s attorney that purported to represent the entire 4.8-million-person class—negotiated a $14 million settlement with HelloFresh, which the District Court approved without identifying any subclasses of plaintiffs.

Continue reading “First Circuit Rejects Classwide Settlement, Finds That Would-Be Class Representatives Could Not Adequately Represent Subclasses With Materially Different Claims”

Second Circuit Reaffirms that Solicited Faxes are Not Subject to Certain TCPA Protections, Grants Judgment Suggested by Defendant

The Second Circuit recently affirmed a Southern District of New York judgment denying injunctive relief against Educational Testing Service (“ETS”), which was sought by serial TCPA-plaintiff, Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley. See Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Educational Testing Service, No. 21-399-cv, No. 21-541-cv, 2022 WL 6543814 (2d Cir. Oct. 31, 2022).

Continue reading “Second Circuit Reaffirms that Solicited Faxes are Not Subject to Certain TCPA Protections, Grants Judgment Suggested by Defendant”

Eleventh Circuit Denies Petition for Rehearing, Permits Split Decision Barring Incentive Awards to Stand

The Eleventh Circuit recently decided not to rehear en banc a panel decision which held that a TCPA class action settlement could not include an incentive award for the lead plaintiff. See Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, No. 18-12344, 2022 WL 3083717 (11th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022).

The matter arose from a putative class action complaint, which alleged that defendant NPAS Solutions, a medical debt collection company, violated the TCPA by repeatedly robocalling plaintiffs to collect debts that did not actually belong to them. The lead plaintiff in the case, Charles Johnson, retained counsel and was actively engaged in the litigation, including negotiations that resulted in a $1.432 million class settlement.

Continue reading “Eleventh Circuit Denies Petition for Rehearing, Permits Split Decision Barring Incentive Awards to Stand”

Second Circuit Diverges from Third, Holds that an Unsolicited Invitation to Participate in a Survey is Not Actionable Under the TCPA

The Second Circuit recently addressed whether a faxed invitation to participate in a market research survey is an “unsolicited advertisement” actionable under the TCPA. In Bruce Katz, M.D., P.C. v. Focus Forward LLC, 22 F.4th 368, 374 (2d Cir. 2022), the Court of Appeals held that under the plain text of the TCPA, an offer to participate in a survey, without more, is not an advertisement because it does not communicate the “availability or quality of any property, goods, or services.” Id. at 372.

The dispute arose from defendant Focus Forward LLC’s two faxes to plaintiff Bruce Katz, M.D., P.C., a medical services company. Id. at 370. The faxes offered $150 in exchange for participation in a market research study. Id. Plaintiff initiated a putative class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the TCPA, but the federal district court dismissed the complaint, agreeing with Defendant that an invitation to participate in a market research survey was not an unsolicited advertisement within the bounds of 47 U.S.C. § 227. Id.

Continue reading “Second Circuit Diverges from Third, Holds that an Unsolicited Invitation to Participate in a Survey is Not Actionable Under the TCPA”

An Indiana District Court Foreshadows a Split in Authority as to Personal Liability of Corporate Officers

The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in Black v. First Impression Interactive, Inc., No. 21 C 3745, 2022 WL 169652 (Jan. 19, 2022), denied a motion to dismiss a TCPA claim and, in so doing, highlighted a potential split among authorities as to the extent of personal liability for corporate officers and employees.

Plaintiff brought suit against two individuals, “the only officers and employees of First Impression,” a defunct corporation that had dissolved prior to the lawsuit. Id. at *1. Because First Impression had dissolved and the defendants were named individually, the court considered three theories of personal liability: “(1) ʻvicarious liability’; (2) ‘relief defendants’; and (3) ‘personal participation.’” Id. at *2.

Continue reading “An Indiana District Court Foreshadows a Split in Authority as to Personal Liability of Corporate Officers”

Artful Pleading Won’t Circumvent Sovereign Immunity, Fourth Circuit Says

In Cunningham v. Lester, —F.3d—, 2021 WL 821467 (4th Cir. Mar. 4, 2021), the Fourth Circuit reiterated that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is alive and well and very much applicable to putative TCPA claims, and that crafty plaintiffs cannot artfully plead around the doctrine’s reach.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) contains a provision requiring the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to “establish a system” so applicants “receive notice of eligibility for an applicable State health subsidy program.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 18083(a), (b)(2), (e). CMS contracted with private company GDIT to fulfill CMS’s requirement that it contact individuals to inform them of their eligibility for participation in the subsidized health insurance plans offered through ACA’s health insurance exchanges. Defendants were individuals working for CMS in connection with the CMS-GDIT contract. Defendants instructed GDIT to prerecord a message and deliver it to approximately 680,000 individuals who had not consented to receive the message.

Continue reading “Artful Pleading Won’t Circumvent Sovereign Immunity, Fourth Circuit Says”

Two More District Courts Disagree with Creasy

Confusion continues amongst federal district courts in the wake of Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. (“AAPC”), 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020), the Supreme Court decision that held the TCPA’s government-debt exception—instituted via a 2015 amendment to the statute—violated the First Amendment. Courts recently have dealt with the issue of whether plaintiffs can bring TCPA claims for conduct occurring between 2015 and July 2020, the date the unconstitutional amendment was passed and the date the Supreme Court declared the amendment unconstitutional and ordered it severed from the TCPA. The Eastern District of Louisiana said the answer to this question is no. Creasy v. Charter Communications, Inc., 2020 WL 5761117 (E.D. La. Sept. 28, 2020). The district courts for the Southern District of California and the Northern District of Ohio disagree, as we discuss below. Our prior posts on this issue, which we have been following closely, can be found here.

In McCurley et al. v. Royal Sea Cruises, Inc., 2021 WL 288164 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021), and Less v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 2021 WL 266548 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2021), defendants argued that TCPA claims arising during the above-mentioned time period were barred because the TCPA was entirely unconstitutional during that period. Both the McCurley and the Less courts disagreed, though the two courts differed in their rationales.

Continue reading “Two More District Courts Disagree with Creasy“

Parroting the Elements of the Statute—Without Pleading Any Substantive Facts—Isn’t Good Enough Under Rule 8 for the District of Connecticut

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut recently granted a Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ TCPA claims because Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege facts supporting an inference that Defendant (1) used an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) and (2) failed to maintain an internal do-not-call list. Sterling v. Securus Technologies, Inc., 2020 WL 2198095 (D. Conn. May 6, 2020). Plaintiffs originally sued multiple Defendants for negligent and willful violations of the TCPA. Id. at *1. Defendants removed the case to federal court and filed motions to dismiss the original Complaint. Id. Plaintiff amended, and Defendants again moved to dismiss. Id. The Court dismissed all claims against Defendants. Id. The Court then granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Id. at *2. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint only named Defendant Securus, and Defendant again moved to dismiss. Id.

Continue reading “Parroting the Elements of the Statute—Without Pleading Any Substantive Facts—Isn’t Good Enough Under Rule 8 for the District of Connecticut”