Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.15: Prior Express Consent

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

In Suriano v. French Riveria Health Spa, Inc., Civ. No. 18-9141, 2018 WL 6702749 (E.D. La. December 20, 2018), Judge Lemmon found that text messages were information only and not advertisements. Therefore, the sender did not violate the TCPA. At the outset, messages one, two, and five are plainly informational in nature. The first (sent the day after plaintiff joined)… Read More

In Rodriguez v. Premier Bankcard, LLC, Case No. 3:16CV2541, 2018 WL 4184742 (N.D. Ohio. August 31, 2018),  Judge Carr framed 3 questions on summary judgment. First, Premier claims that because Hodge is the subscriber to the 70 number–that is, the consumer assigned to the number, and the individual billed for the call–he “was entitled to grant prior express consent for… Read More

In Karpilovsky v. All Web Leads, Inc., Case No. 17-C-1307, 2018 WL 3108884 (N.D. Ill. 2018), Judge Leinenweber certified a TCPA class. The Plaintiffs, however, retained an expert, Young, who testified that the AWL website was not materially changed during the class period and, for that reason, all members of the proposed class experienced the same information-submission and click-through procedure when… Read More

In Sawyer v. KRS Biotechnology, 2018 WL 2425780 (S.D. Ohio 2018), Magistrate Judge Bowman denied class certification in a junk-fax TCPA class action.   Although the defendant’s V.P. Of sales was unfamiliar with the TCPA before the litigation and the defendant had no formal records documenting individualized consent to send the faxes, Judge Bowman found that individual questions of consent predominated.… Read More

In Walintukan v. SBE Entertainment Group., LLC., 2018 WL 2357763, at *3 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Tigar denied a TCPA defendant's summary judgment motion. Defendants argue that “the text messages involved in this case fall squarely within [the] scope of consent test articulated by the Court of Appeals in Van Patten — both from a temporal and a subject matter standpoint.”… Read More

In Zucker v. HSBC Bank, USA, et. al., 2018 WL 2048880, at *8–9 (E.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Hurley hoisted Reyes on its own petard, finding that consent to call given in a credit application was not, at the pleadings stage, broad enough consent for the inevitable debt collection calls to be made by an ATDS. Plaintiff has alleged that PHH (1) called… Read More

In Fober v. Management and Technology Consultants, LLC, 2018 WL 1526365, at *3 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a patient consented to receive autodialed calls. Plaintiff argues, though, that her consent extended only to calls concerning the quality of Health Net's services and not to calls concerning the quality of Dr. Schwartz'… Read More

In Barnes v. Conn Appliances, Inc., 2018 WL 907418, at *3 (S.D.Miss., 2018), Judge Wingate agreed with a TCPA defendant's argument that a non-party to a contract can assent to its terms, including a TCPA-consent clause, but a jury would have to decide whether she did. This court now turns to an examination of the law. The TCPA occupies a… Read More

In Etter v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2017 WL 6594069, at *4–5 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Alsup denied certification of one TCPA blast-fax case due to lack of class representative's standing, but granted certification of a second class.  As to the standing issue, Judge Alsup found that: Etter cites various decisions for the proposition that “awareness” of an offending transmission is unnecessary to establish… Read More

In San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc., 2017 WL 4536422, at *2 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Davila found that a confirming text may be, on the facts pleaded, an advertisement that triggers the TCPA. Defendants contend that the text is not advertising or telemarketing because it does not encourage Plaintiff to purchase property, goods or services. Plaintiff argues that the… Read More

1 2 3 16