TCPA

In Bank v. Icot Holdings, No. 18-CV-02554 (AMD)(PK), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 676, at *15-19 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 1, 2023), Judge Kuo denied class certification in a TCPA class based on ascertainability grounds.  The Plaintiff's claim sounded as a "customary user" of a cell phone for which his mother was the subscriber and had been a member of a previous class… Read More

In Samson v. United Healthcare Servs. Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00175, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229000, at *2-4 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 20, 2022), Judge Pechman lifted her previous stay of the case. The procedural history is as follows: Plaintiff Frantz Samson filed this suit against Defendant, United Healthcare Services ("United"), in 2019 alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47… Read More

In Brickman v. United States, No. 21-16785, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35286, at *4-6 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2022), the Court of Appeals found no ATDS was used, and found no basis to distinguish its Borden decision. This case arises from the district court's dismissal with prejudice of Colin R. Brickman's class-action claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C.… Read More

In Weisbein v. Allergan, Inc., No. 8:20-cv-00801-SSS-ADSx, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217844, at *4-7 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2022), Judge Sykes granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant in text message class action. The crux of Plaintiff's claims is that Defendants sent automated text messages that violated the TCPA, specifically § 227(b)(1)(A) of the TCPA, which prohibits calls made using… Read More

In BPP v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C., No. 21-3791, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31586 (8th Cir. Nov. 16, 2022), the Court of Appeals clarified the rules for “unsolicited advertisements” under the TCPA fax rules. We disagree with BPP's proposed interpretation of unsolicited advertisement. HN3 The TCPA does not ban all faxes that contain information about commercial goods or services, as BPP… Read More

In Risher v. Adecco Inc., No. 19-cv-05602-RS, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209676 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022), Judge Seaborg dismissed an evolving theory that text messages can be a pre-recorded voice under the TCPA. In the absence of express consent, section 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA, and its implementing regulations at 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(2), prohibit non-emergency calls… Read More

In Yahoo Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., No. S253593, 2022 Cal. LEXIS 6887, at *2-3 (Nov. 17, 2022), the California Supreme Court, on certification of the issue from the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, found that TCPA claims were covered under Yahoo!'s manuscript CGL policies. The Court summarized: Privacy injuries that involve the right of seclusion… Read More

In Borden v. Efinancial, Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 21-35746, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31613, at *3-4 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that to be an ATDS, the system must randomly or sequentially generate telephone numbers, not other sorts of numbers. So a system that selects telephone from a previously entered list… 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 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 Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc., No. 21-35201, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 29228 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022), the Court of Appeals held that aggregation of the TCPA’s penalties to $925 million raised due process concerns. ViSalus last argues that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires a reduction of the $925,220,000 statutory damages award. HN8 Whether a damages… Read More

In Chennette v. Porch.Com, Inc., No. 20-35962, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 28354, at *1-4 (9th Cir. Oct. 12, 2022), the panel reversed the district court's judgment dismissing a complaint, brought by 51 individuals who are home improvement contractors, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) and (c); and remanded.  GoSmith's and Porch.com's business model… Read More

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