Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.05: "Call" Defined -- Other Electronic Media

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Snyder v. Landcar Mgmt. LTD, No. CV-22-00705-PHX-DLR, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49695, at *5-7 (D. Ariz. Mar. 23, 2023), Judge Rayes found that Ringless Voicemail Messages were "calls" under the TCPA. The Ninth Circuit defines a call under the TCPA as "to communicate with or try to get into communication with a person by telephone." Satterfield v. Simon &… Read More

In Weister v. Vantage Point AI, LLC, No. 8:21-cv-1250-SDM-AEP, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139642, at *2-5 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2022), Judge Merryday denied summary judgment to a ringless voicemail message provider whose telemarketing messages were challenged under the TCPA. The facts were as follows: The following facts are either undisputed or construed in Weister's favor. VantagePoint sells "financial, technical… Read More

In Demesa v. Treasure Island, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-02007-JAD-NJK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98511, at *8-9 (D. Nev. June 1, 2022), Judge Dorsey rejected a TCPA Plaintiff's attempted end-around Duguid, where the Plaintiff argued that a standard text message fell within section 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B)'s prohibition against using "artificial or prerecorded voice" without consent. DeMesa's alternative theory of liability fares no better.… Read More

In Toney v. Advantage Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep, No. 6:20-cv-182-WWB-EJK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141242, at *8 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2021), Judge Embry denied class certification in a "ringless" voicemail message TCPA class action. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he, and others similarly situated to him, received a "ringless" voicemail with a pre-recorded message from Advantage. (Doc. 40 ¶¶ 31,… Read More

  In Caplan v. Budget Van Lines, No. 2:20-CV-130 JCM (VCF), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136865 (D. Nev. July 31, 2020), Judge Mayan denied a ringless technology defendant’s motion to dismiss a TCPA claim The second issue is whether RVMs constitute calls under the TCPA. RVM technology allows a message to be placed in a recipient's voicemail without the recipient's… Read More

In Picton v. Greenway Chrysler-Jeep-Dodge, No. 6:19-cv-196-Orl-31DCI, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103796 (M.D. Fla. June 21, 2019), Judge Presnell allowed a TCPA claim to proceed based on “calls” placed by ringless technology. The So-called "ringless" voicemail technology allows advertisers to transmit recorded messages via the Internet directly to the voicemail box associated with a cellular telephone without causing the [*2]  phone… Read More

In Schaevitz v. Braman Hyundai, No. 1:17-cv-23890-KMM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48906 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2019), Judge Moore found that direct-to-voicemail call technology placed a “call” under the TCPA.  The facts were as follows: Major Advertising, LLC, on behalf of Defendant, transmitted an unsolicited pre—recorded voicemail message (the "Message") to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, which stated as follows: Hi, this… Read More

In Breda v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless, 2017 WL 5586661, at *3–5 (D.Mass., 2017), Judge Casper granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant because Plaintiff's number had been assigned to a VoiP plan that was not protected by the TCPA.  The facts were as follows: Cellco placed calls to Breda's phone number to discuss a Verizon customer's account status in error (the… Read More

In Lundstedt v. I.C. System, Inc., 2017 WL 4281057, at *2–3 (D.Conn., 2017), Judge Meyer allowed an FDCPA claim to proceed based on the call pattern alleged in the Complaint. [D]efendant argues that the alleged pattern of calls—29 calls over a period of 24 days—is legally insufficient to show an intent to annoy, abuse, or harass plaintiff as the statute requires.… Read More

In Klein v. Commerce Energy, Inc., 2017 WL 2672290, at *10 (W.D.Pa., 2017), Judge Conti granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant against a Plaintiff who received calls over VoiP and through Google. There is no dispute that the challenged calls were made to Klein's VoIP number. Collectcents and Commerce Energy, however, dispute that either of them can be held… Read More

In Klein v. Just Energy Group, Inc., 2016 WL 3539137, at *2 (W.D.Pa., 2016), Judge Conti granted summary judgment to an energy company who's debt collectors placed wrong-party calls to Klein over Klein's Google VoiP.    Because Klein's VoIP number had been erroneously recorded as the number for P.S., Commerce Energy, Inc. d/b/a Just Energy provided Klein's VoIP number to Collectcents… Read More

In Ghawi v. Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff, P.C., 2015 WL 6958010, at *3-5 (D.Conn., 2015), Judge Arterton denied summary judgment to a TCPA defendant, rejecting the argument that the calls were not to a cellular telephone so long as the debtor told the caller that the calls were routed to a a cell phone. All Defendants argue that Mr. Ghawi's… Read More

In Telephone Science Corp. v. Trading Advantage, LLC, 2015 WL 672266 (N.D.Ill. 2015), Judge Guzman found that the TCPA was not limited to consumer protection only; it applied to autodialed calls made to a commercial business' cellular telephones, too. Telephone Science Corporation (“TSC”) brings this case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) seeking relief for telemarketing calls defendants made to… Read More

In Nieto v. Allied Interstate, Inc., 2014 WL 4980376 (D.Md. 2014), Judge Blake granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant on the basis that no ATDS was used to dial the call. No genuine dispute exists as to whether Allied used an ATDS in calling Nieto. In support of its assertion that it did not use an ATDS, Allied presents an affidavit… Read More

In In re Jiffy Lube Intern., Inc., Text Spam Litigation, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 762888 (S.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Miller found that Plaintiff stated a claim for violation of the TCPA, finding that Plaintiff had pleaded a vicarious liability claim against the entity who hired the company sending the text messages, that Plaintiff had pleaded an absence of consent, and… Read More