In Barton v. Serve All Help All Inc., No. 3:21-cv-5338 RJB, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161487, at *8 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 7, 2022), Judge Bryan denied summary judgment all around, but also denied a TCPA defendant's jurisdictional motion. Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot show that he has been "injured in fact" because he has not shown that he has… Read More
In Pizarro v. Quinstreet, Inc., No. 22-cv-02803-MMC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145556, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2022), Judge Chesney ordered a TCPA Class-action Plaintiff's case to arbitration. In her Complaint, Pizarro alleges QuinStreet is a "marketing company" that "sells consumer contact information to lenders" in exchange for referral fees. (See Compl. ¶ 4.) Specifically, Pizarro alleges, QuinStreet "harvests… Read More
In Brickman v. Meta (9th Cir. No. 21-16785), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is poised to rule on efforts to evade the SCOTUS' ruling in Duguid. According to the Respondent's Brief, the issue is framed as: This appeal involves an effort to evade the consequences of binding Supreme Court precedent that squarely forecloses Plaintiff’s claim. The Telephone Consumer Protection… Read More
In In re Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, Consumer Act Litig., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141028, at *30-34 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2022), Judge Houston stayed a TCPA case based on an ATDS issue currently pending before the 9th Circuit in Brinkman. Plaintiffs seek a stay of this action pending the resolution of Brickman v. Facebook, Inc., currently before the Ninth… 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 Moore v. Robinhood Fin. LLC, No. 2:21-cv-01571-BJR, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138392, at *2-5 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 3, 2022), Judge Rothstein allowed a CEMA claim to proceed against Robin Hood under its "Refer-a-Friend" program. The facts alleged are as follows: Robinhood is an online investments brokerage service firm that, through its free mobile application (the "Robinhood App") and website,… Read More
In Costa v. Dvinci Energy, Inc., Civil Action No. 21-11501-NMG, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130208, at *4-6 (D. Mass. July 22, 2022), Judge Gorton declined to strike a TCPA class action at the pleadings stage despite complaints that it is a "fail-safe" class. Dvinci contends that the proposed class is fail-safe—and thus must be struck—because it defines its membership in… Read More
In Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advert. Fund Tr., Ltd., No. 3:19-cv-592 (JAM), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126468, at *6-8 (D. Conn. July 18, 2022), Judge Meyer disposed of the argument that Subway's text message software was an ATDS. And under Soliman's reading, the Act would probably cover much more than mass dialing. As she admits, sequential number generation is "an… Read More
In Panzarella v. Navient Sols., Inc., No. 20-2371, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16324, at *11-12 (3d Cir. June 14, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held that Navient's dialer was an ATDS, but it's ATDS-capacity was not "used" to call . As to the ATDS question, the Court of Appeals held: Applying this construction here, we find… Read More
In Mina v. Red Robin Int'l, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-cv-00612-RM-NYW, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104423, at *10-16 (D. Colo. June 10, 2022), Judge Wang dismissed a TCPA case at the pleadings stage for absence of an ATDS under Duguid. [Defendant] maintains that Duguid does not foreclose a conclusion that the text messaging program used by Defendants constitutes an autodialer under… Read More
In Moskowitz v. Am. Sav. Bank, F.S.B., No. 20-15024, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16016, at *8 (9th Cir. June 10, 2022) Moskowitz argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment for ASB because ASB did not have the consent required under the TCPA to send the responsive text messages to Moskowitz. We have already determined that the type of… Read More
In Barnett v. First Nat'l Bank of Omaha, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-337-CHB, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104029, at *5-8 (W.D. Ky. June 10, 2022), Judge Boom denied a motion to reconsider a finding that the TCPA defendant's LiveVox system was not an ATDS. In his Motion, Barnett claims that the Court failed to consider FNBO's use of the TWX system in… Read More
In Williamson v. Irving K Motor Co. LLC, Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-1599-L-BH, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101052, at *15-18 (N.D. Tex. June 7, 2022), Judge Ramirez denied a motion to dismiss a TCPA claim brought on the argument that SCOTUS' AAPC rendered the TCPA unenforceable from 2015 to 2020. A small number of district courts, including the Eastern Districts of Texas… 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 Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, No. 20-16900, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9083, at *12-14 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2022), the 9th Circuit addressed the enforceability of an arbitration agreement set forth on a website that allowed the consumer to click-through the operator's various policies and the arbitration. The Court of Appeals stated the rule as follows: The most… Read More
In Eggleston v. Reward Zone USA LLC, No. 2:20-cv-01027-SVW-KS, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20928, at *11-14 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022), Judge Wilson dismissed a TCPA "pre-recorded voice" case premised on the theory that the standard text messages that she received did not constitute a "voice" under the TCPA. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's text messages violated § 227(b) because… Read More
A federal district court in Arizona has certified a nationwide “non customer” class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”) against Citibank, N.A. TCPA class actions carry enormous potential liability, as the statute provides for recovery of $500 to $1,500 per call for unconsented autodialed or prerecorded calls to cellular telephones. The case is Head v.… Read More
In Pascal v. Concentra, Inc., No. 19-cv-02559-JCS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239583, at *23-30 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2021), Judge Spero granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant on the basis that no ATDS was used. Based on the undisputed facts relating to Textedly's functionality, Plaintiff does not dispute that the text messages at issue in this case were not… Read More
In Raphael Aus. v. Alorica, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-05019-ODW (PVCx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240677, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021), Judge Wright dismissed a TCPA claim but allowed a Rosenthal Act claim to proceed. As to the TCPA claim, Judge Wright held: The parties dispute whether alleging that a system calls a prepopulated list of customers or clients is… Read More
In Brown v. DirecTV, LLC, No. CV 13-1170 DMG (Ex), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231014, at *15-23 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2021), Judge Gee discussed how wrong number codes might impact class certification. But that does not mean that Plaintiffs' procedure is otherwise improper—if done in the proper sequence. The Class is defined to include only non-customers, and DirecTV has… Read More
