Menu

Showing 7 posts in Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

ACA International Continues Setting Precedent Regarding Autodialers: Second and Third Circuits Follow Suit in Adopting a Narrowed Definition

The Second Circuit, in King v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., and the Third Circuit, in Dominguez v. Yahoo!, Inc., relied upon the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA International v. FCC in limiting the definition of an autodialer under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Dominguez found that Yahoo's text message system did not fit the definition of autodialer, while King emphasized that only a device that currently has the ability to perform autodialing functions can qualify as an autodialer system. More ›

TCPA Developments: Consumer's Attempt to Revoke Consent to Text Messages Found to be Unreasonable

In Nicole Rando v. Edible Arrangements, International, LLC, a consumer sued Edible Arrangements under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) arguing that the company sent her text messages after she had revoked her consent. The New Jersey federal court granted Edible's Motion to Dismiss, finding that the consumer's revocation was not "reasonable." The consumer was prompted to text "STOP" if she wished to revoke her consent, but the consumer responded instead with long sentences such as "Thank you. I'd like my contact info removed" or "I asked to be removed from this service a few times. Stop the messages." More ›

Distilling the DC Circuit's TCPA Decision in ACA International v. FCC

In a case we have been tracking closely, a unanimous panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals set aside two key determinations of the FCC's interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In ACA International, et al. v. FCC, Judge Sri Srinivasan found that the FCC's "explanation of what qualifies" as an automated telephone dialer service (ATDS) and its one-call safe harbor for calling a phone number that has been reassigned to a non-consenting person was arbitrary and capricious. However, the Court sustained the FCC's rulings on revocation of consent "through any reasonable means clearly expressing a desire to receive no further messages" and the scope of the exemption for "time-sensitive healthcare calls." More ›

Third Circuit Rules that a Single Voicemail on a Cell Phone is Sufficient to Confer Standing for a TCPA Claim

In another court's journey into the murky waters of constitutional standing post-Spokeo, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that one single voicemail on a consumer's cell phone is sufficient to confer standing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In Sussino v. Work Out World, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that she received an unsolicited call on her cell phone from Work Out World (WOW). When she did not answer, WOW left a prerecorded promotional offer lasting more than one minute on her voicemail. WOW moved to dismiss for lack of standing under Article III. The district court granted WOW's motion on the grounds that a single solicitation was not "the type of case that Congress was trying to protect people against," and in any event, the call and voicemail did not cause a concrete injury. Sussino appealed. More ›

National Pharmacy Avoids TCPA Claim for Flu Shot Robocall under Health Care Rule Exemption

A judge in the Southern District of New York recently held that an automated, pre-recorded message sent on behalf of Rite Aid informing recipients to obtain a flu vaccine shot was exempted from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by virtue of the FCC’s Health Care Rule exemption. The exemption permits health care providers to contact customers in order to convey important "health care messages" as defined and covered by HIPAA.

The case, Zani v. Rite Aid Headquarters Corp., 14-cv-9701, involved an automated, pre-recorded message sent on behalf of Rite Aid informing recipients to obtain a flu vaccine shot from their local Rite Aid Pharmacy. In 2013, the putative plaintiff went to his local Rite Aid pharmacy and received a flu shot. He provided Rite Aid with his cell phone number and signed a privacy notice consenting to receiving health related communications by Rite Aid. Roughly a year after receiving his flu shot, he received a voice message reminder to get another flu shot at Rite Aid, as did all previous customers who obtained a flu shot and signed the privacy notice. More ›

Selling a Car, Texting and the TCPA

After a car dealership (allegedly) texted a person who listed a car for sale on Craiglist, the would be seller filed a class action suit against the dealer claiming the texts were unsolicited, made without consent, and violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Florida federal court, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) ordered briefing on whether texting created standing for the Craiglist seller to sue. On review, the federal court concluded receiving prohibited text messages and calls amount to sufficiently concrete and particularized harm. The court acknowledged other cases from around the country in which courts held that violations of the TCPA alone do not create injury for standing to sue but disagreed with this analysis.  Instead, just the unsolicited telephone contact was the injury and any analysis of how the person was contacted does not matter for standing.  With ongoing disagreement among courts throughout the country on what constitutes an injury sufficient to bring suit in federal court, expect rulings to continue to come down on both sides of the issue until the appellate courts provide further guidance.

The case is Mohamed v. Off Lease Only, Inc., Case No. 15-23352-Civ-COOKE/TORRES.

87 Debt Collection Calls in 3 Weeks? Maybe too much

We return to the issue of retail debt collection with a case out of Illinois in which a federal judge has asked a jury to decide if a debt collection agency’s constant calling to a Banana Republic credit card holder violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The debt collector called the cardholder three to five times each day, with no two calls made less than two hours apart, for a total of eighty-seven calls between December 5 and December 23. On the 87th call, the cardholder answered and told the debt collector she could not pay the debt and to stop phoning her. Even though the debt collector did not call the cardholder again, the federal court refused summary judgment and decided a jury should review whether the volume and pattern of calling amounted to harassment under the FDCPA. We previously reported on a case out of California where a federal judge dismissed an FDCPA claim under the same circumstances and against the same debt collector. More ›

Search
Subscribe via Email