Author Archives: Zoe K. Wilhelm

Texas District Court Joins the Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal, Permitting a Private Right of Action for Violation of Section 64.1200(d)

August 8, 2022
and
Do-Not-Call Rules, Privacy, Residential Line, Text Messages, Vicarious Liability

The Northern District of Texas, in Powers v. One Technologies, LLC, joined its sister courts and the Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal to hold that 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), which prohibits certain telemarketing communications to “residential telephone subscriber[s]” without properly maintaining a list of persons on the national do-not-call list, provides a private right of action under the TCPA. 2022 WL 2992881, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 28, 2022).

The plaintiffs sued under Section 64.1200(d), alleging that One Technologies violated the TCPA when the plaintiffs received unsolicited, unlawful text messages.  Specifically, they alleged that One Technologies did not have or maintain “a procedure for maintaining a do-not-call list.”

Continue reading   »

Barr Ruling Cures Claims Arising During Life of Government-Debt Exception, Holds Texas District Court

September 16, 2021
and
Creasy, Jurisdiction, Retroactive Relief, Telemarketing

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas concluded that plaintiffs can bring claims for violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) that arose while the government-debt exception (“GDE”) to that provision was still on the books.  The decision comes amid growing contention among courts in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020), which struck down the GDE as an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech.

Continue reading   »

District Court Departs from Supreme Court Plurality to Find Government-Debt Collector Retroactively Liable Under TCPA — But Rejects Statutory Damages

May 10, 2021
and
Actual Harm, Debt Collection, Disproportionate Damages, Exemptions, First Amendment, Government Calls, Retroactive Relief, Robocalling

For nearly five years, the TCPA explicitly excluded from liability calls made to collect government-backed debt. Naturally, government debt collectors relied on this exception and called debtors without fear of TCPA liability. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that this exception was unconstitutional and severed it from the statute. Now, a federal district court has ruled that government debt collectors may be liable for calls made prior to the Supreme Court Ruling, despite their reasonable reliance on the exception. In doing so, the court brushed aside due process concerns.

As previously reported, the government debt exception was severed from the statute by the Supreme Court’s decision in Barr v. AAPC. The AAPC decision was highly fractured—with the Court issuing four opinions but none commanding a majority.  Since, district courts have been grappling with AAPC means for the statute.

Continue reading   »

Sixth Circuit Rejects Strict Liability for Products Advertised via Fax, “Some Level of Knowledge” Required

April 29, 2021
and
Junk Fax Prevention Act

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently re-affirmed its position that manufacturers of products advertised in unsolicited fax messages do not face strict liability under the TCPA’s junk-fax provision.  To face liability, the manufacturers must at least be aware that fax advertisements are being sent.

In Lyngaas v. Curaden AG, a dentist sued a Swiss toothbrush manufacturer, Curaden AG, and its American subsidiary, Curaden USA, for sending unsolicited fax advertisements for their toothbrushes.  992 F.3d 412, 417 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021).  The district court concluded that Curaden AG could not be held liable for the faxes because Curaden USA had designed and broadcasted the faxes on its own, without parent authorization.  Id. at 423.  On appeal, the dentist argued that FCC regulation extended liability to any entity “whose goods or services are advertised or promoted” in a fax, regardless of knowledge.  Id. at 424 (quoting 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(10)).

Continue reading   »

Seventh Circuit Reaffirms Gadelhak, Rejects Challenge to Narrow ATDS Definition

March 3, 2021
and
Automatic Telephone Dialing System, Summary Judgment

The Seventh Circuit last week affirmed its holding in Gadelhak v. AT&T Services, Inc., 950 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2020) that, to qualify as an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) under the TCPA, a device or calling system must have the ability to randomly or sequentially generate the phone numbers that it calls. As we reported here and here, this interpretation of the statute’s ATDS definition excludes systems and devices that place calls from a premade list of numbers, such as a list of customers’ mobile numbers. Courts remain divided on how to interpret the ATDS definition and the Supreme Court is expected to address the issue in a case that is currently before it, Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid.

Continue reading   »

Eastern District of California Adds to Creasy Split

January 20, 2021
, and
Creasy, Debt Collection, Exemptions, First Amendment, Supreme Court

As we have reported on here, here, here, and here, a growing number of district courts are issuing opinions addressing whether they have subject matter jurisdiction over TCPA claims alleging robocall violations that occurred when the government debt exception invalidated by Barr v. APPC, 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020), was part of the statute.  The Eastern District of California recently added to this line of cases, joining courts that have held that “the TCPA remains enforceable, at least against non-government debt collectors, as to calls made between November 2015 and July 6, 2020.”  See Stoutt v Travis Credit Union, No. 2:20-cv-01280, 2021 WL 99636, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2021).

Continue reading   »

District Court Dismisses Ex-Attorney and TCPA Serial Litigant’s Claims with Prejudice

January 19, 2021
, and
Automatic Telephone Dialing System, Do-Not-Call Rules, Residential Line

On January 6, 2021, the District of Maryland dismissed a TCPA claim (and a derivative claim under Maryland’s MDTPCA) against Discount Power, Inc. (“Discount”). See Worsham v. Discount Power, Inc., No. 20-0008, 2021 WL 50922 (D. Md. Jan. 6, 2021). The decision is a helpful reminder that a number’s purpose can be a critical component of a TCPA claim and that defendants should therefore develop that fact during preliminary investigation and, if necessary, during formal discovery.

Continue reading   »

Court Dismisses Claims that Shopping Platform was Directly or Vicariously Liable for Retailer’s Texts

May 29, 2020
and
Direct Liability, Text Messages, Vicarious Liability

The Northern District of California recently granted a motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that e-commerce platform Shopify was directly or vicariously liable for the alleged TCPA violations of a retailer using the platform. Sheski v. Shopify (USA) Inc., No. 19-CV-06858, 2020 WL 2474421 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2020).

The plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint alleging, among other claims, that the defendants Shopify (USA) Inc. and Shopify Inc. (collectively, “Shopify”) violated the TCPA due to Shopify’s “unlawful practice of making, facilitating and participating in an unauthorized text message marketing campaign en masse to consumers’ cellular telephones.”

Continue reading   »

District Court Sharpens Focus on Injury-in-Fact Requirement in Text Messaging Cases

April 8, 2020
and
Actual Harm, Standing, Text Messages

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a TCPA putative class action for lack of standing, finding that the plaintiff could not show he suffered a concrete injury-in-fact.  Reinforcing Eleventh Circuit precedent, the court held both that the number and infrequency of the text messages at issue was insufficient to support plaintiff’s loss of privacy, waste of time, and intrusion upon seclusion allegations and that he failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the texts depleted his cell phone battery or negatively impacted his data and messaging plan. Eldridge v. Pet Supermarket Inc., No. 18-22531, 2020 WL 1475094 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2020).

In Eldridge, plaintiff alleged that defendant used an ATDS to send him seven advertising and telemarketing text messages without his consent, in violation of the TCPA. Plaintiff received the first two messages after he texted defendant’s number in order to enter a raffle for free pet food. They confirmed plaintiff’s entry in the raffle, provided a link to the raffle’s rules, and stated that plaintiff consented to receive automated text messages from defendant. The next five messages, sent over approximately three months, contained coupon codes and information regarding upcoming pet adoption events. Plaintiff alleged that all seven text messages “‘invaded [his] privacy, intruded upon his seclusion and solitude, wasted his time by requiring him to open and read the messages, depleted his cellular telephone battery, and caused him to incur a usage allocation deduction to his text messaging or data plan.’” Id. at *2.

Continue reading   »

Central District of California Grants Motion for Summary Judgment After Finding That Plaintiff Failed to Revoke Prior Express Consent To Be Called

November 22, 2019
and
Consent, Debt Collection, Revocation

The Central District of California recently granted summary judgment to the defendant on a TCPA claim in Mendoza v. Allied Interstate LLC, SACV 17-885 JVS (KESx), 2019 WL 5616961 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2019), finding that the plaintiff had not sufficiently proven revocation of consent to be called about two credit card accounts when he had revoked consent to be called about two other accounts serviced by the same card issuer.

Continue reading   »