On November 4, 2015, after President Obama signed the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015 into law, Senator Ed Markey introduced legislation to repeal Section 301 of the agreement that exempted from the TCPA's requirement of prior express consent calls made relating to debt owed to, or backed by the federal government.
On November 2, 2015, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Spokeo v. Robins, which raises the question of what constitutes requisite injury to support a claim for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In Spokeo, Plaintiff filed a class action Complaint against Defendant, accusing Defendant of violating the FCRA by publishing false information about him. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff's claim, concluding Plaintiff had not experienced the requisite harm to sustain a claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that violation ...
Roberts v. Paypal, Inc., No. 13-16304 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2015) Pending before the Court was the trial court's Order granting summary judgment in Defendant's favor concluding that Plaintiff provided "prior express consent" to receive text messages from Defendant by knowingly providing his phone number. The Court of Appeals rejected Plaintiff's argument that his consent was limited, stating "[u]nder the FCC's interpretation, Roberts expressly consented to text messages from PayPal when he provided PayPal his cell phone number. Even if Roberts believed that PayPal would only ...
Leyse v. Bank of America Nat. Ass'n, No. 14-4073N (3rd Cir. Oct. 14, 2015) After receiving a prerecorded telemarketing call on the landline shared with his roommate, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit, which was met with a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Of pertinence, is the U.S. Court of Appeals' holding that despite the undisputed fact Plaintiff's roommate was the subscriber and intended recipient of the call, Plaintiff had standing to prosecute a TCPA claim. Recognizing that consideration of who is the "called party" is relevant because prior consent of such an individual to ...
Jeffrey M. Stein, D.D.S., M.S.D., P.A., et al. v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership, No. 8:13-cv-02136-SDM-AEP (Oct. 24, 2013) Three dentists, a pest control service and two other alleged recipients of unsolicited faxes selling football tickets filed a class action Complaint against the Tampa Buccaneers for allegedly violating the TCPA. Within three days of removing the case to federal court, Defendant made an offer of judgment under Rule 68 to each Plaintiff. Two days later, Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint, advocating the absence of an Article III "case or controversy ...
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act defines the phrase Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) as equipment that has the capacity: (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers. On November 19, 2013, the FCC issued a public notice seeking comment on a Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling and/or Expedited Rulemaking filed by the Professional Association for Customer Engagement (PACE). The Petition seeks a Declaratory Ruling: 1. Clarifying that a dialing system is not an ATDS unless it has ...
Jackson Five Star Catering, Inc. v. John R. Beason and Tax Connection Worldwide, LLC, No. 10-10010, 2013 WL 5966340 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2013) Pending before the Court were several motions, including Defendant business owner's motion for summary judgment, contending he could not be held individually liable for unsolicited fax advertisements sent by a third party on behalf of his company. Defendant argued that he could only be held individually liable if Plaintiff pierced the corporate veil. Rejecting this argument, the court noted that though the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ...
Cellco Partners v. Plaza Resorts, Inc., No. 12-81238-CIV, 2013 WL 5436553 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2013) Plaintiff Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless filed a TCPA claim alleging millions of calls were placed to Verizon customers, approximately 27,678 of which were made to cell phones Verizon owns, pays for and provides to employees to conduct Verizon business. The ultimate question presented in the case was who possessed the TCPA cause of action, Verizon or its employee, since the TCPA provides that it is a violation of the statute to make a call without the prior express consent of ...