In Breslow v. Wells Fargo, here, the 11th Circuit followed the 7th Circuit’s Soppett decision to find that “called party” under the TCPA is the subscriber to the cellular telephone.  “At bottom, the FCC recognized that debt collectors are in a better position to determine whether a party’s consent is still valid. That is, a person who is assigned a cell phone number, such as Breslow, has no way to know if a prior user of that number, such as Wells Fargo’s former customer, has consented to being contacted via autodial system. Because the FCC places the burden of proving consent exists on the creditor (i.e., the caller), we believe that burden should remain on the caller to ensure the consent remains valid.” The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was unconcerned with the imposition of strict liability on creditors in a manner that the creditors could never avoid without completely abandoning autodialed calls and making all calls manually.  “We recognize that requiring Wells Fargo to confirm that the consent it previously obtained is still valid imposes certain burdens. Wells Fargo remains free to use live telemarketers, who can confirm that the customer is still using the cell phone number he or she provided. Of course, even if Wells Fargo confirms that the consent remains valid, that confirmation is good only for that moment in time. There is no guarantee that the customer will continue to use the cell phone. Indeed, a bank customer who owes a debt may decide to get rid of the cell phone after receiving the first debt-collection call in an effort to avoid paying the debt.  These burdens, however, are a product of the most reasonable interpretation of the term “called party,” considering the text, structure, and legislative history of the TCPA. “We take the provision as Congress wrote it, and neither add words to nor subtract them from it.” Korman v. HBC Fla., Inc.,182 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 976 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he role of the judicial branch is to apply statutory language, not to rewrite it.”).”   Questions about this decision and its impact can be directed to the Firm’s members Eric Troutman at or Scott Hyman at