Faxes Archives - TCPA Blog

Category - "Faxes"

Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit, Finding Alleged Faxes Were Not Sent to a “Telephone Facsimile Machine”

The TCPA generally prohibits the transmission of an “unsolicited advertisement” to a “telephone facsimile machine.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(c). But is an “online fax service” a “telephone facsimile machine”? And can a plaintiff state a claim based on faxes that were sent to its “online fax service”? The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado recently answered both questions in the negative. See Astro Companies, LLC v. Westfax, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-02328 (D. Colo. Feb. 12, 2025).

Plaintiff Astro Companies, LLC (Astro) alleged that it is an online fax service provider that uses a fax server to convert “traditional faxes” into readable formats (such as a PDF), which are then either emailed to the recipient or made available online to be viewed (and potentially printed) at the recipient’s convenience. Astro sued multiple companies, claiming it had received “junk” faxes in violation of the TCPA. Even accepting Astro’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true, the court granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss, found Astro failed to state a claim, and, ultimately, dismissed the action with prejudice.

Continue reading “Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit, Finding Alleged Faxes Were Not Sent to a “Telephone Facsimile Machine””

Fourth Circuit Broadens TCPA’s Reach Over ‘Unsolicited Advertisements’

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently handed down a decision that impacts the TCPA landscape. In Family Health Physical Medicine, LLC v. Pulse8, LLC, the court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a TCPA claim, adopting a broader interpretation of what constitutes an “unsolicited advertisement” under the Act. This ruling has important implications for businesses operating in the Fourth Circuit and could influence TCPA litigation strategies nationwide.

The case revolved around a fax sent by Pulse8, a health care analytics company, inviting recipients to attend a free webinar on behavioral health coding. Family Health Physical Medicine alleged that this fax violated the TCPA as an unsolicited advertisement, despite not explicitly offering any goods or services for sale. In a decision that expands the scope of TCPA liability, the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged the fax was an advertisement under two theories. Family Health Physical Med., LLC v. Pulse8, LLC, No. 22-1393, *4-*11 (4th Cir. 2024).

Continue reading “Fourth Circuit Broadens TCPA’s Reach Over ‘Unsolicited Advertisements’”

Seventh Circuit’s back-to-back rulings shed light on TCPA’s applicability to unsolicited faxes

The 7th Circuit recently issued a decision in Smith v. First Hospital Laboratories, Inc., holding that in some “narrow situations” a fax offering to buy a product or service might be considered an advertisement under the TCPA if the fax also refers to a related offer to sell another product or service. 2023 WL 509070, *6 (7th Cir. 2023).

Smith is a decision driven by its particular facts. The plaintiff, a chiropractor¹, received two unsolicited faxes from First Hospital Laboratories (FHL), a company that provides health monitoring and screening services through a network of medical providers who act as independent contractors. Id. at *1. The faxes invited plaintiff to join FHL’s network of preferred medical providers. Id. The faxes also stated that FHL would pay plaintiff a fixed rate for each service he rendered to one of FHL’s clients. Id. FHL would refer clients to the plaintiff only if he agreed to allow FHL to invoice the clients directly for the services and neither attempted to obtain more than the fixed rate nor disclosed to the clients the fixed rates that FHL was paying the plaintiff for the services. Id. at *4. The clear implication was that FHL would profit by charging the clients more than the fixed rate it was paying the plaintiff to render the services. Id.

Continue reading “Seventh Circuit’s back-to-back rulings shed light on TCPA’s applicability to unsolicited faxes”

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Holds That Differentiating Service Is an “Advertisement” and Defendant’s Intent in Sending Fax Is Irrelevant

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reaffirmed that an objective “four corners” standard governs whether faxes are “advertisements” that must meet the TCPA’s consent requirement. Separately, any fax that compares the sender’s product or service to others could constitute an “advertisement” under the Court’s decision.

Background

In Steven A. Conner DPM, P.C. v. Fox Rehabilitation Services, P.C., 2023 WL 2226781 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2023), Plaintiff (a podiatrist) alleged that Defendant sent unsolicited faxes to his office during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to promote its in-home physical therapy services. Plaintiff had never had contact with or made a referral to Fox Rehab before receiving the faxes. Fox Rehab testified at trial that it had sent the faxes to Plaintiff as part of a blast campaign to inform referring healthcare providers that it was adhering to recently issued public guidelines for stemming the spread of coronavirus. Since Fox Rehab admitted to having sent the faxes, the sole issue for the Court was whether they were “unsolicited advertisements” under the TCPA.

Continue reading “Eastern District of Pennsylvania Holds That Differentiating Service Is an “Advertisement” and Defendant’s Intent in Sending Fax Is Irrelevant”

Eighth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment, Finding that Fax was not “Unsolicited Advertisement”

The Eighth Circuit in BPP v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C., 2022 WL 16955461 (8th Cir. 2022), recently affirmed a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment because the fax at issue was not an “unsolicited advertisement” within the meaning of the TCPA. The outcome hinged on the specific content of the fax at issue.

Plaintiff alleged that Caremark—a pharmacy benefits manager—violated the TCPA when it sent a fax announcing a new option for healthcare services provided by Caremark’s clients. The fax explained that Caremark’s clients had “the option to apply” a new limit on certain prescriptions and explained that certain prescriptions were exempt from this new limit. Caremark (and its vendor that sent the fax at issue) moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the summary judgment motion, and Plaintiff appealed arguing that the fax was an “unsolicited advertisement” within the meaning of the TCPA. The Eighth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment decision.

Continue reading “Eighth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment, Finding that Fax was not “Unsolicited Advertisement””

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”

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”

PBM’s Policy Update Fax Not TCPA “Advertisement,” Says Eastern District of Missouri

Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment for a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) that allegedly violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements via fax to thousands of healthcare providers. The defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the court concluded, because the fax simply notified recipients of changes to insured patients’ coverage and did not promote any products or services.

The case began when a St. Louis healthcare provider (BPP) filed a complaint alleging that defendant CaremarkPCS Health, LLC, violated the TCPA when it sent an unsolicited fax to over 55,000 providers notifying them of new limits on insurance coverage for opioid prescriptions for pediatric and adolescent patients in plans sponsored by Caremark’s clients. BPP v. CaremarkPCS Health, LLC, No. 4:20-cv-126, 2021 WL 5195785, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 9, 2021). Caremark, which manages prescription drug benefits for various health insurers, asked for summary judgment on the ground that the fax was not an “advertisement” under the TCPA and that plaintiff’s claim therefore failed as a matter of law. Id.

Continue reading “PBM’s Policy Update Fax Not TCPA “Advertisement,” Says Eastern District of Missouri”

District Court Weighs in On TCPA Fax Liability Standards in the Eighth Circuit

The Eastern District of Missouri recently granted a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against three defendants in a TCPA fax case. Levine Hat Co. v. Innate Intelligence, LLC, No. 16-cv-01132, 2021 WL 1889869 (E.D. Mo. May 11, 2021). The court’s opinion discusses two areas of law with limited Eighth Circuit authority and illustrates the uncertainty regarding how district courts in the jurisdiction may rule on these issues in the future. Id. at *3-5. Specifically, the opinion discusses the analysis a court may apply to determine if a fax is an “unsolicited advertisement.” Id. at *3-4. The opinion also enumerates the factors a court may consider when assessing whether a “fax broadcaster” demonstrates a sufficiently “high degree of involvement” in the transmission of a fax to render it liable for the transmission. Id. at *3-5.

Continue reading “District Court Weighs in On TCPA Fax Liability Standards in the Eighth Circuit”