CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.18: "Called Party" -- Subscriber Issues

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 Hylton v. Titlemax of Va., Inc., No. 4:21-cv-163, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202470, at *8 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2022), Judge Baker denied a TCPA defendant's summary judgment in a re-assigned number case. Titlemax argues that summary judgment is warranted because Jennings consented to Titlemax calling the 7270 Number concerning his account. (Doc. 65-1, pp. 7-9.) This argument fails.… Read More

In Vargas v. Vehicle Sols. Corp., No. 8:19-cv-1109-T-60AAS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141526 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2020), Judge Barber found  standing under the TCPA. The facts were as follows: The son of Plaintiff Yajairis Vagas incurred a debt to Defendant Vehicle Solutions Corp. ("VSC") to purchase a car. Because her son worked for Plaintiff's company, Plaintiff made payments on… Read More

In N. L. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Nos. 19-15399, 19-15938, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17434 (9th Cir. June 3, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit followed Soppet and Osorio decisions regarding calls to recycled to cellular telephones. Credit One also attempts to draw support from certain orders of the FCC, which has authority to promulgate regulations implementing… Read More

In Sandoe v. Bos. Sci. Corp., Civil Action No. 18-11826-NMG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2800, at *11-12 (D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2020), Judge Gorton granted summary judgment on a TCPA "re-assigned" number case, permitting a "reasonable reliance" defense. The First Circuit Court of Appeals has not addressed this issue and the district courts in this Circuit and other circuits that… 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 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 Greenley v. Laborers' International Union of North America, Defendant, and United States of America, Intervenor., 2017 WL 4180159, at *1 (D.Minn., 2017), Judge Wright found that a TCPA claim brought against a Union survived a Motion to Dismiss and constitutional challenge.  The facts were as follows: Greenley's amended complaint alleges that during a sixteen-month period from November 14, 2014, through March… Read More

In Jackson v. Pmab, LLC, 2017 WL 4316096, at *3–4 (D.N.J., 2017), Judge Rodriquez granted partial summary judgment to a TCPA defendant, but discussed the extent to which Osorio agency survived the FCC 2015 Order. According to the FCC, the manner in which a business obtains a telephone number informs the consideration of whether a number was “knowingly released” and, therefore, permissible… Read More

In Harrington v. RoundPoint Mortgage, Judge Chappelle denied a defendant's summary judgment motion, finding a triable issue of fact whether a third party could and did consent for the called party to be called on their cell phone by an ATDS. Defendants next argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Count one because Harrington provided prior express consent to… Read More

In McCaskill v. Navient Solutions, 2016 WL 1367228 (M.D. Fla. 2016), here, Judge Covington of the USDC for the Middle District of Florida granted partial summary judgment to a TCPA plaintiff whose cellular telephone received 727 telephone calls to her cellular telephone arising from collection on student loans taken out by her daughter.  Since the defendant bore the burden to prove, but could… Read More

  In Abella v. Mozea, LLC, , 2015 WL 6599747, at *4 (E.D.Pa. 2015), Judge Dalzell allowed a TCPA text-message class action past the pleading stage, based on allegations that Defendant SAC is a student loan consolidation and forgiveness service that offers assistance to consumers hoping to alleviate their student loan debt burden. Compl. at ¶ 10. Defendant Mozeo is an… Read More

In Danehy v. Time Warner Cable Enterprise LLC, 2015 WL 5534285, at *2-3 (E.D.N.C.,2015), Judge Flanagan adopted a Magistrate's ruling on summary judgment in favor of a TCPA defendant. In his objections, plaintiff takes issue with the magistrate judge's determination that SkyCreek did not utilize an ATDS when making calls to plaintiff's telephone. The court does not reach the merits of… Read More

The FCC's Omnibus Ruling, along with the comments of Commissioners Wheeler, Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai, and O'Rielly can be found here. We will be evaluating the Ruling, and Commissioners' comments.   For questions regarding the Ruling and its impacts, please contact the group leaders of Severson & Werson's TCPA team, Eric Troutman (ejt@severson.com) or Scott Hyman (sjh@severson.com). Read More

In Soulliere v. Central Florida Inv., Inc., 2015 WL 1311046 (M.D.Fla. 2015), Judge Whittemore found that a non-subscriber/regular user of a cellphone had standing to bring a TCPA claim and that there was a triable issue of fact regarding whether there was consent or whether such consent had been revoked. Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not have standing because he… 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 Maraan v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 2014 WL 6603233 (S.D.Ohio 2014), Judge Spiegel, found that a subscriber to a cellular telephone service had standing under the TCPA even if the subscriber was not the party who actually answered the call. On summary judgment, however, Defendant has reversed course on this issue, and now maintains that Plaintiff, because he is merely… Read More

In Balschmiter v. TD Auto Finance LLC, 2014 WL 6611008 (E.D.Wis. 2014), Judge Stadtmueller denied class certification of a TCPA class defined essentially as either references or cell-phone transferees or both: “All persons within the United States who, on or after October 21, 2009, received a non-emergency telephone call from or on behalf of TDAF to a cellular telephone through… Read More

1 2