In a recent decision that may affect any company that sells products or services using telemarketers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Jones v. Royal Admin. Servs., Inc. in favor of a product seller, holding the seller was not vicariously liable for calls made by a telemarketer in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because the telemarketer was an independent contractor.
In a new decision that may have important implications for telemarketers and others using automatic dialing systems, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held in the case of Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) allows a consumer to partially revoke his or her consent to receive automated telemarketing calls.
Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., (TCPA) to protect consumers from “[u]nrestricted telemarketing, which it determined to be “an intrusive invasion of privacy.” The TCPA prohibits, among other conduct, telephone calls to residential phone lines or cell phones using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party.
Using a telemarketer to market goods or services can be extremely costly to the seller if the telemarketer conducts its business in a manner that violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Penalties for violations of the TCPA range from $500 to $1,500 per call. And with call or text campaigns that may reach thousands of recipients, or even millions – the potential liability can be astronomical. It should be no surprise TCPA class action lawsuits are flourishing.
The FCC’s TCPA “opt-out” notice requirements for sending solicited faxes continues to be weakened.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California recently issued an order denying class certification to a nationwide putative class of consumers against The CBE Group, Inc. (“CBE”), which alleged that CBE made over 500 million calls to these consumers’ cell phones without their prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”). Blair, et al. v. The CBE Group, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00134-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal. August 26, 2015).
One thing that telemarketers and other companies that communicate with their customers by calling their customer’s cellphones crave is clarity under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227. The Sixth Circuit recently shed some light on the meaning of “prior express consent” under the TCPA in connection with calls by a creditor to its debtor’s cellphone in the case of Hill v. Homeward Residential, Inc., No. 14-4168 (6th Cir. August 21, 2015).
One tactic often used with varying degrees of success to thwart putative class actions brought under various federal statutes is to file an early offer of judgment under Rule 68 that provides the named plaintiff or plaintiffs complete relief in an effort to moot the putative class claims at the inception of a class case.
The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has solicited public comment on its rule that requires certain opt-out language on faxes for which the recipients have agreed to receive. If the language is not included, the fax sender is subject to statutory damages. Seizing on this rule, class action lawsuits have proliferated. In these lawsuits, plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages—millions of dollars in damages—for engaging in consensual communications.