"I love TCPA Blog"

2022-10-20 05:13:05

TCPA Blog Main menuSkip to primary contentSkip to secondary contentHomeAbout UsContactCookie PolicyPost navigation← Older postsThe FCC Has Illegal and Scam Robotexting in its Sights, Proposed New Text Blocking Rules October 6, 2022 Laura H. Phillips and Qiusi Y. Newcom FCC Actions, NPRMs, Text MessagesFor those regularly monitoring the FCC’s various TCPA dockets, you now have a new docket to follow: CG Docket No. 21-402. The FCC announced on September 27, 2022 that all Commissioners had voted to commence a new robotext proceeding, releasing the text of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) the same day. Comments and reply comments will be due 30 and 45 days respectively from the time a summary of the Notice is published in the Federal Register, which has not yet occurred as of the publication of this post. Continue reading »Eleventh Circuit Applies TransUnion and Vacates Class Certification August 29, 2022 Matthew M. Morrissey and Sophie H. Gotlieb Class Certification, Standing, Text MessagesThe Eleventh Circuit recently decertified a TCPA settlement class because the class definition included members who could never have Article III standing under Eleventh Circuit precedent.  Drazen v. Pinto, — F.4th –, No. 21-10199, 2022 WL 2963470, at *4-7 (11th Cir. July 27, 2022).  The court applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and ruled that all members of a Rule 23(e) settlement class must have Article III standing to recover damages.  Id. at *5-6 (citing TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2208 (2021)).  The Drazen court expressly rejected the proposition that plaintiffs with no standing in the Eleventh Circuit could be part of a nationwide class, even if they may have standing in another circuit.  Id.  As of the date of publication, Drazen is the first and only decision from a federal appellate court that analyzes TCPA claims under the TransUnion rubric.  Although the impact of Drazen outside of the Eleventh Circuit remains unclear, the case demonstrates how courts may analyze Article III standing issues in TCPA class actions going forward.As readers of this blog are aware, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez last summer.  The decision reaffirmed that plaintiffs must demonstrate a “concrete harm” to establish Article III standing to sue in federal court.  TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. at 2200.  Moreover, in footnote 4 of the TransUnion decision, the Court explicitly stated that it was not addressing the “distinct question whether every class member must demonstrate standing before a court certifies a class.”  Id. at 2208 n.4. Continue reading »Eleventh Circuit Denies Petition for Rehearing, Permits Split Decision Barring Incentive Awards to Stand August 15, 2022 William A. Wright and Henry M. Grabbe Professional Plaintiffs, SettlementsThe Eleventh Circuit recently decided not to rehear en banc a panel decision which held that a TCPA class action settlement could not include an incentive award for the lead plaintiff.  See Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, No. 18-12344, 2022 WL 3083717 (11th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022).The matter arose from a putative class action complaint, which alleged that defendant NPAS Solutions, a medical debt collection company, violated the TCPA by repeatedly robocalling plaintiffs to collect debts that did not actually belong to them.  The lead plaintiff in the case, Charles Johnson, retained counsel and was actively engaged in the litigation, including negotiations that resulted in a $1.432 million class settlement. Continue reading »Texas District Court Joins the Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal, Permitting a Private Right of Action for Violation of Section 64.1200(d) August 8, 2022 Zoe K. Wilhelm and W. Joshua Lattimore Do-Not-Call Rules, Privacy, Residential Line, Text Messages, Vicarious LiabilityThe Northern District of Texas, in Powers v. One Technologies, LLC, joined its sister courts and the Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal to hold that 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), which prohibits certain telemarketing communications to “residential telephone subscriber[s]” without properly maintaining a list of persons on the national do-not-call list, provides a private right of action under the TCPA. 2022 WL 2992881, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 28, 2022).The plaintiffs sued under Section 64.1200(d), alleging that One Technologies violated the TCPA when the plaintiffs received unsolicited, unlawful text messages.  Specifically, they alleged that One Technologies did not have or maintain “a procedure for maintaining a do-not-call list.” Continue reading »District of Connecticut Rejects ATDS Allegations in Complaint Against Subway August 5, 2022 Matthew M. Morrissey and Stacie L. Linguist Automatic Telephone Dialing System, Text MessagesThe District of Connecticut recently dismissed a TCPA action against the Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust (“Subway”) because plaintiff failed to allege that Subway used an ATDS to send text messages to her cell phone.  Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust Ltd., No. 3:19-cv-592, 2022 WL 2802347 (D. Conn. July 18, 2022).  The court held that “[t]he TCPA is clear:  a device is not an automatic telephone dialing system merely because it generates random or sequential index numbers that are used in turn to select which numbers to call from a stored list.”  Id. at *3 (emphasis in original).  The ruling serves as yet another example of a dialing technology that does not meet the definition of an ATDS following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163, 1171 (2021).In Soliman, plaintiff alleged that she received a text message from Subway offering her a free bag of potato chips.  Id. at *1.  Plaintiff further alleged that she replied “STOP” to unsubscribe from the text messages but claimed that Subway texted her again a few days later.  Id. at *1.  Plaintiff subsequently filed a two-count class action lawsuit against Subway for negligently and intentionally violating the TCPA.  Id.  Subway filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.  Id. Continue reading »Proposed Federal TCPA Legislation Offers a New and Broad ATDS Definition July 20, 2022 Laura H. Phillips, W. Joshua Lattimore and Michael P. Daly Automatic Telephone Dialing System, Congress, Supreme CourtOn July 12, 2022, Representatives Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., and Katie Porter, D-Calif. introduced H.R. 8334 in the U.S. House of Representatives, which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill would amend the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, to, among other things, “prohibit the use of automated telephone equipment to send unsolicited text messages.”The TCPA presently defines “automatic telephone dialing system” (or “ATDS”) as equipment that has the capacity “to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator . . . to dial such numbers.”  The law generally prohibits any person from making nonconsensual telemarketing or other types of telephone calls to a cell phone number using an ATDS. Continue reading »ATDS Status Turns on Capability of Dialing Equipment, Not Actual Use, Third Circuit Holds—But Liability Turns on Actual Use, Not Mere Capability June 22, 2022 Bradley J. Andreozzi and Anthony F. Jankoski 2015 Declaratory Ruling, Automatic Telephone Dialing System, Debt CollectionLast week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that the TCPA’s definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (or “ATDS”) includes all dialing equipment with the present ability to generate random or sequential phone numbers and dial those numbers, regardless of whether the equipment’s owner actually uses those “ATDS functionalities.” But, importantly, a caller must actually use such functionalities in order to violate the statute’s prohibition on making autodialed phone calls, the Court further held.In other words, a dialing system’s status as an ATDS turns on the system’s present capabilities, not how it is used. But whether a defendant is liable for using an ATDS turns on how the system is used, not just what it can do. Thus, the Court read the ATDS definition broadly but the liability provision narrowly, in a ruling that will give some comfort to companies that use their dialing equipment to contact customers or prospects from set lists, rather than to randomly generate phone numbers to be called indiscriminately. Continue reading »FCC Acts to Curb Foreign-Originated Illegal Robocalls, Imposes Several New Requirements on Gateway Providers June 13, 2022 Laura H. Phillips and Matthew J. Adler Call Spoofing, Caller ID Spoofing, FCC, FCC Actions, NPRMs, RobocallingRecently, on May 20, 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a Report and Order (“Order”), as well as a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (all available here), with a plain objective:  to “take further steps to stem the tide of foreign-originated illegal robocalls and seek comment on additional ways to address all such calls.”  Order ¶ 1.  As stated by the FCC, “reducing illegal robocalls that originate abroad is one of the most vexing challenges we face in tackling the problem of illegal robocalls.”  Id.  The Order was adopted by a unanimous, 4-0 vote by the FCC after it had received comments over the last nine months on various topics, including whether so-called “gateway providers” should be required to authenticate caller identification information and implement other efforts to reduce the number of illegal prerecorded and/or artificial voice “robocalls” originating overseas.A “gateway provider” is a U.S.-based provider that acts as an intermediary for an international call by receiving a call directly from a foreign provider before transmitting that call downstream to other U.S.-based providers for termination.  Order ¶ 25.  This definition is not static but rather one that applies on a call-by-call basis, i.e., a provider is a gateway provider—and subject to the FCC’s new Order—only for those calls in which it acts as a gateway provider.  Id. ¶ 28.  Per the FCC, commenters “overwhelmingly” supported the imposition of additional requirements on gateway providers in order to “stop the flood of foreign-originated illegal calls.”  Id. ¶ 21. Continue reading »FCC Seeks Comment on HHS/CMS Request for Certainty About Communications Critical to Federal and State Health Insurance Programs Post-Pandemic May 4, 2022 Laura H. Phillips and Qiusi Y. Newcom Consent, FCC Actions, Federal Contractors, Government Calls, Healthcare, Person, Prior Express Consent, Robocalling, Sovereign ImmunityReacting quickly to a joint request by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (collectively, the Health Agencies) last Thursday, the FCC released a Public Notice on May 3, 2022, inviting comments about how it should clarify “that certain automated calls and text messages or prerecorded voice calls relating to enrollment in state Medicaid and other governmental health coverage programs are permissible under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).” Recognizing the time-sensitive nature of the Health Agencies’ request, the FCC established a short cycle for public comment – comments are due in 14 days on May 17, 2022, and any reply comments are due on May 24, 2022. Continue reading »Southern District of New York Denies Motion to Dismiss Because Plaintiff Sufficiently Alleged That He Was a “Residential Subscriber” May 2, 2022 Matthew M. Morrissey and Simonne Brousseau Do-Not-Call Rules, Residential Line, Text MessagesThe TCPA’s Do Not Call (DNC) regulations prohibit telephone solicitations to “residential telephone subscriber[s]” who have “registered [their] telephone number on the national do-not-call registry.” See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). However, as we noted in a recent post, several district courts have found that the term “residential telephones,” as used in the DNC regulations, may include cell phones under certain circumstances, such as when cell phones are used primarily for “personal, family, and household” matters. See Hunsinger v. Alpha Cash Buyers, LLC, 3:21-cv-1598-D, 2022 WL 562761, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2022) (collecting cases). Nonetheless, other courts have rejected this proposition. See id. at *2 (citing Callier v. GreenSky, Inc., EP-20-CV-00304, 2021 WL 2688622, at *6 (W.D. Tex. May 10, 2021)).In Rose v. New TSI Holdings, Inc., the Southern District of New York recently held that a plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss arguing that plaintiff’s cell phone could not qualify as a “residential telephone.” No. 21-CV-5519, 2022 WL 912967 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2022).  Specifically, plaintiff alleged that he received twelve unsolicited calls from 2018 through 2021 after he visited Boston Sports Club even though his number had been listed on the DNC Registry since 2004. He alleged that he received the messages even after he told defendant to stop calling/texting him at least five times, and that some of the calls included identical prerecorded promotional messages. Continue reading »Post navigation← Older posts Subscribe to Blog via EmailCategories2015 Declaratory RulingAbusive LawsuitsActual HarmAjit PaiAnda OrderAppsArbitrationAscertainabilityAttorneys GeneralAttorneys' FeesAutomatic Telephone Dialing SystemBudget ActCall SpoofingCalled PartyCaller ID SpoofingCampbell-EwaldCentralizationClass CertificationCongressConsentConsolidated AppealCounterclaimCreasyD.C. CircuitDebt CollectionDirect LiabilityDiscoveryDisproportionate DamagesDo-Not-Call RulesEmergency Purpose ExceptionEstablished Business RelationshipExemptionsFaxesFCCFCC ActionsFederal ContractorsFirst AmendmentFTCGeneralGovernment CallsHealthcareIndemnificationJunk Fax Prevention ActJurisdictionNotice of InquiryNPRMsOffers of JudgmentOpt-out NoticesO’RiellyPersonPolitical CallingPredictive DialersPrimary JurisdictionPrior Express ConsentPrivacyProfessional PlaintiffsRAY BAUM's ACTRecycled NumbersRes JudicataResidential LineRetroactive ReliefReversionRevocationRobocallingRule 8Safe HarborSenateSettlementsSoundboardsSovereign ImmunityStandingStatute of LimitationsStrict ScrutinySummary JudgmentSupreme CourtTelemarketingText MessagesTreble DamagesVicarious LiabilityVoIPResourcesFCCFCC PetitionsFCC CalendarFTCFTC Calendar47 U.S.C. § 22747 C.F.R. § 64.120016 C.F.R. §§ 310.1-.9PACEDMAinsideARMFCC RulingsApril 1992 Notice of Proposed RulemakingOctober 1992 Report & OrderJuly 2003 Report & OrderApril 2006 Report & Order & Third Order on ReconsiderationJanuary 2008 Declaratory RulingOctober 2008 Order on ReconsiderationFebruary 2012 Report & OrderOctober 2012 Report & OrderNovember 2012 Declaratory RulingMarch 2013 Democratic Dialing Citation & OrderMarch 2013 Dialing Services Citation & OrderMay 2013 Declaratory RulingOctober 2014 Junk Fax OrderJuly 2015 Declaratory Ruling & OrderAugust 2015 Fax Waiver OrderAugust 2016 Declaratory RulingLegislative History137 Cong. Rec. 16204 (1991)137 Cong. Rec. 18781 (1991)137 Cong. Rec. 11307 (1991)H.R. Rep. 102-317 (1991)S. Rep. 102-178 (1991)archives2022October 2022August 2022July 2022June 2022May 2022April 2022March 2022February 2022January 20222021December 2021November 2021October 2021September 2021August 2021July 2021June 2021May 2021April 2021March 2021February 2021January 20212020December 2020November 2020October 2020September 2020August 2020July 2020June 2020May 2020April 2020March 2020February 2020January 20202019December 2019November 2019October 2019September 2019August 2019July 2019June 2019May 2019April 2019March 2019February 2019January 20192018December 2018November 2018October 2018September 2018August 2018July 2018June 2018May 2018April 2018March 2018February 2018January 20182017December 2017November 2017October 2017September 2017August 2017July 2017June 2017May 2017April 2017March 2017February 2017January 20172016December 2016November 2016October 2016September 2016August 2016July 2016June 2016May 2016April 2016March 2016February 2016January 20162015December 2015November 2015October 2015September 2015August 2015July 2015June 2015May 2015April 2015March 2015February 2015January 20152014December 2014November 2014October 2014September 2014August 2014July 2014June 2014May 2014April 2014March 2014February 2014January 20142013December 2013November 2013October 2013©2022 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Lawyer Advertising.Privacy Policy We use cookies to improve your experience with our website. By browsing our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies. For more information about how we use cookies, please review our privacy policy and cookie policy. OKPrivacy & Cookies Policy Close Privacy OverviewThis website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.NecessaryNecessaryAlways EnabledNecessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.Non-necessaryNon-necessaryAny cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website. SAVE & ACCEPT