Category Archives: Do-Not-Call Rules

Texas District Court Rejects “Influence Liability” Workaround to FCC Exemption for Research and Surveys

April 13, 2023
and
Do-Not-Call Rules, Exemptions, FCC, Professional Plaintiffs, Safe Harbor, Telemarketing

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas reaffirms the FCC’s interpretation that calls and text messages regarding consumer surveys and other market research do not qualify as restricted “telephone solicitations” or “telemarketing” under the TCPA or its implementing regulations.  Although the outcome in this case is a positive development, organizations that engage in these types of communications should continue to monitor and assess the state of the law in other jurisdictions.

In Hunsinger v. Dynata LLC, the plaintiff was a serial pro se TCPA litigant whose phone number was registered on the FCC’s national do-not-call list at all relevant times.  No. 22-cv-136-G-BT, 2023 WL 2377481, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2023).  Mr. Hunsinger alleged that he received a single call from an unidentified caller asking him to visit Dynata’s website.  Id.  Hunsinger thereafter sent a letter demanding a copy of Dynata’s DNC policy, but Dynata declined and argued that Hunsinger had no legal basis for his demand.  Id.  Hunsinger claimed that he directed Dynata to place his number on its internal DNC list but that he subsequently received a single SMS text message that contained a link to another website affiliated with Dynata.  Id. at *2.

Continue reading   »

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

February 16, 2023
and
Do-Not-Call Rules, Residential Line, 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   »

Recent Ninth Circuit Opinions Address Standing and the Meaning of “Automatic Telephone Dialing System”

November 28, 2022

Actual Harm, Automatic Telephone Dialing System, Do-Not-Call Rules, Residential Line, Standing, Text Messages

The Ninth Circuit recently issued two noteworthy TCPA decisions.  Most recently, in Borden v. eFinancial, LLC, No. 21-35746, 2022 WL 16955661 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2022), the Court addressed one of the most hot-button issues in this space:  the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”).  Shortly before that, in Chennette v. Porch.com, Inc., 50 F.4th 1217 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit discussed both Article III and statutory standing.

Borden and the ATDS Definition

In a unanimous opinion, the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a text message TCPA suit based on its holding that to qualify as an ATDS, dialing equipment “must generate and dial random or sequential telephone numbers,” not just any numbers.  See Borden, 2022 WL 16955661, at *1.

Continue reading   »

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   »

Southern District of New York Denies Motion to Dismiss Because Plaintiff Sufficiently Alleged That He Was a “Residential Subscriber”

May 2, 2022
and
Do-Not-Call Rules, Residential Line, Text Messages

The TCPA’s Do Not Call (DNC) regulations prohibit telephone solicitations to “residential telephone subscriber[s]” who have “registered [their] telephone number on the national do-not-call registry.” See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). However, as we noted in a recent post, several district courts have found that the term “residential telephones,” as used in the DNC regulations, may include cell phones under certain circumstances, such as when cell phones are used primarily for “personal, family, and household” matters. See Hunsinger v. Alpha Cash Buyers, LLC, 3:21-cv-1598-D, 2022 WL 562761, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2022) (collecting cases). Nonetheless, other courts have rejected this proposition. See id. at *2 (citing Callier v. GreenSky, Inc., EP-20-CV-00304, 2021 WL 2688622, at *6 (W.D. Tex. May 10, 2021)).

In Rose v. New TSI Holdings, Inc., the Southern District of New York recently held that a plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss arguing that plaintiff’s cell phone could not qualify as a “residential telephone.” No. 21-CV-5519, 2022 WL 912967 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2022).  Specifically, plaintiff alleged that he received twelve unsolicited calls from 2018 through 2021 after he visited Boston Sports Club even though his number had been listed on the DNC Registry since 2004. He alleged that he received the messages even after he told defendant to stop calling/texting him at least five times, and that some of the calls included identical prerecorded promotional messages.

Continue reading   »

Internal DNC Policies Not Prerequisite to Using EBR Defense, Ohio Southern District Holds

May 2, 2022
and
Do-Not-Call Rules, Established Business Relationship

Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio clarified that a TCPA defendant need not maintain an internal do-not-call list and policies in order to invoke the “established business relationship” defense for telemarketing calls to numbers on the national DNC registry.

By way of background, the TCPA prohibits businesses from making “telephone solicitations” to phone numbers on the national DNC registry.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c).  However, telemarketing calls and messages can be sent to such numbers where the caller has an “established business relationship” with the recipient.  47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(15)(ii).  The FCC has defined an “established business relationship” (“EBR”) as a “relationship formed by a voluntary two-way communication” regarding a telephone subscriber’s recent purchase of or inquiry about a product sold by the caller.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(5).  A subscriber can terminate the EBR at any moment by making a clear and specific request for the calls and/or messages to stop.  Id. § 64.1200(f)(5)(i).  Separately, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) requires entities who place telemarketing calls to keep an internal list of individuals who have requested not to receive calls and to maintain policies to ensure that the list is honored.

Continue reading   »

Texts Regarding COVID Vaccine Eligibility Are Not Actionable Under TCPA, Texas Northern District Holds

March 18, 2022
and
Do-Not-Call Rules, Emergency Purpose Exception, Healthcare, Text Messages

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently held that unsolicited text messages that simply inform recipients of the availability of a free COVID-19 vaccine are protected by the “emergency purposes” exception to the TCPA’s prior express consent requirement and also do not qualify as telephone “solicitations” prohibited by the FCC’s do-not-call (DNC) rules.

In Horton v. Tarrant County Hospital District, No. 4:22-CV-9-P, 2022 WL 702536 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2022), the plaintiff alleged that he received a single unsolicited text message from the defendant, a public hospital district, announcing that “everyone ages 12 and up is eligible for the COVID vaccine.” Mr. Horton alleged that the text was sent without his consent in violation of the TCPA’s prohibition on autodialed calls as well as the rule against solicitations to telephone numbers on the national DNC list.

Continue reading   »

Personal Cell Phones May Qualify as “Residential Telephones” Subject to DNC Rules, but Calls Made to a Pre-produced List Are Not ATDS Calls, Texas Northern District Holds

March 3, 2022
and
Automatic Telephone Dialing System, Do-Not-Call Rules, Text Messages

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that mobile phones may qualify as “residential telephones” when used (as the Complaint alleged) primarily for “personal, family, and household use,” and thus be subject to the TCPA’s do-not-call rules (47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200(c) & (d)).  This issue has sewn disharmony among federal district courts and may draw attention from higher courts.  But the court also joined the growing number of courts following Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021), that have agreed that calls specifically directed to persons on a pre-produced list (like plaintiff) are not calls made using a “random or sequential number generator” and thus are not subject to the TCPA’s prior express consent requirement for calls made using an ATDS.

In Hunsinger v. Alpha Cash Buyers, LLC, 3:21-cv-1598-D, 2022 WL 562761 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2022), the plaintiff alleged that, over the course of last year, he received eight unsolicited phone calls and six SMS text messages on his cell phone from a number he didn’t recognize.  Hunsinger picked up one of the calls and spoke with a representative for the defendant, to whom Hunsinger gave his email address.  Hunsinger subsequently received several calls and texts from the defendant referring to Hunsinger’s conversation with the representative and asking if he was still interested in a transaction.  These calls and texts were sent using an ATDS, Hunsinger alleged.  At all relevant times, Hunsinger’s number was on the national DNC list.  Id. at *1.

Continue reading   »

Private Cause of Action Exists for Violations of Do-Not-Call Rule, North Carolina Federal Judge Says

August 17, 2021
and
Do-Not-Call Rules, FCC

Last week, Judge James C. Dever III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina handed down a decision of first impression for that court: the FCC’s do-not-call rule, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), creates a private right of action for telephone subscribers who receive calls in violation of that rule’s “minimum standards.” The decision widens the growing split among federal courts as to which provision of the TCPA gives life to the DNC rule.

On its motion to dismiss, the defendant argued that the plaintiff could not maintain an action for alleged violations of § 64.1200(d) because the FCC promulgated that rule under 47 U.S.C. § 227(d), which does not create a private right of action for violations of implementing regulations. Fischman v. MediaStratX, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-83-D, 2021 WL 3559639, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 2021). In opposition, the plaintiff argued that the rule was actually passed pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), which does create a private right of action for such violations. Id.

Continue reading   »

S.D. Cal. Court Dismisses Claims, Finding Text Messages at Issue Were Not “Telephone Solicitations”

July 23, 2021
and
Do-Not-Call Rules, Text Messages

The Southern District of California recently granted (in part) a motion to dismiss in Gross v. GG Homes, Inc., 2021 WL 2863623 (S.D. Cal. 2021), because the text messages at issue were not “telephone solicitations” within the meaning of the TCPA. Notably, the Court found that the text messages did not qualify as solicitations because they were “targeted at procuring services from Plaintiff” (as opposed to selling something to Plaintiff).

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant (a real estate firm) violated the TCPA when it sent text messages (and placed calls) to her cell phone. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss challenging her Article III standing as well as the sufficiency of her factual allegations for her TCPA claims. The Court began by rejecting Defendant’s arguments that Plaintiff lacked standing, that Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that Defendant might be responsible for the texts at issue, and that Plaintiff failed to allege that Defendant used an ATDS to send the text messages. But the Court agreed with Defendant that Plaintiff’s § 227(c) claims—based on sending the text messages to a number on the national Do-Not-Call Registry—must be dismissed.

Continue reading   »