In Trim v. Reward Zone USA LLC, No. 22-55517, 2023 WL 5025264, at *3–4 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that to be a prerecorded voice message under the TCPA, the message must be audible. Prerecorded text messages which have no sound component are not voice messages within the statute's meaning even… Read More
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 Beard v. John Wester Chevrolet, LLC, No. 5:21-CV-173-D, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204379, at *7-9 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2022), Judge Dever found that ringless voicemail technology is a 'call' under the TCPA. Although only a few courts have addressed whether a ringless voicemail is a call under the TCPA, every court that has addressed this question has held that… 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 Smith v. Leif Johnson Ford, No. ED109494, 2021 Mo. App. LEXIS 780, at *2-5 (Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2021), the Court of Appeals affirmed certification of a "ringless voicemail" class. Smith, a Missouri resident, filed a putative class action against Ford, a Texas car dealership doing business nationwide and in Missouri. Smith alleged Ford violated the TCPA by sending… 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
This technology has been around for years and has been the subject of legal advice, an FCC petition, and, now, a judicial opinion. Genevieve Walser-Jolly's Bulletin, here, discusses the recent Saunders case and direct mail-drop technology. 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 Strand v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 2014 WL 1515494 (W.D.Mich. 2014), Judge Bell found that a TCPA Plaintiff must plead and identify the telephone number called in order to state a claim under the TCPA. Plaintiff cites one case for the proposition that Rule 8 and the cases governing its application do not require her to plead the cellular telephone… 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
