With the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) becoming more widespread across almost all aspects of life, the FCC has taken several steps to regulate its use in the telemarketing space. As our readers are aware, earlier this year, the FCC made clear in a Declaratory Ruling that telemarketing calls employing AI technology are subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (“TCPA”) restrictions on “artificial or prerecorded voice” transmissions. Yesterday, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel proposed additional regulations applicable to the use of AI in telemarketing calls. The latest propos ..read more

As our readers are by now aware, on June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a legal precedent known as “Chevron deference” by a 6-3 vote. The Court’s opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al. (“Loper Bright”) has major implications for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) rulemaking. “Chevron deference” refers to the 1984 landmark Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The decades-old doctrine mandated that, if Congress passes a law that leaves room for interpretation, courts ..read more

On June 17, 2024, a judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval of the class settlement reached by the parties in Lateano v. Chicago Cubs Baseball Cub, LLC. In his Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) lawsuit, Plaintiff alleged that he continued to receive promotional text messages from the Chicago Cubs despite opting out of the receipt of future marketing communications. This was a potential violation of the TCPA, as the law requires that businesses honor consumers’ Do Not Call (“DNC”) requests. As our readers are aware, the TC ..read more

Last month, a magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued a useful decision in favor of Defendant, recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class be denied. In Sharfman M.D.P.A. v. Precision Imaging St. Augustine LLC  (“Sharman”), Plaintiff sought to certify a class of individuals or entities who received an unsolicited fax advertising Defendant’s imaging and radiology services. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s fax message violated the TCPA because it was sent without first obtaining ..read more

Readers of our blog may recall a recent piece in which we discussed a Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (“FTSA”) lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In Morris v. Lincare, Inc., Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s FTSA lawsuit on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to plead actual damages as required to maintain a class action under Fla. Stat. § 768.734(2). Although the Court granted Defendant’s motion in part, significantly, the Court declined to dismiss Plaintiff’s FTSA claim. We discuss the Court’s decision in further detail below.  ..read more

On April 8, 2024, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) Automatic Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”) liability in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Facebook v. Duguid. As our readers are aware, the TCPA was enacted to restrict certain telemarketing practices, including the use of an ATDS for marketing purposes. In Perrong v. Montgomery Cnty., Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated the TCPA by using a number generator to determine the order in which to call a list of phone numbers. Citing it ..read more

An Illinois federal district court judge recently held that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) may be vicariously liable for alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) violations. In Nater v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., Plaintiff alleged that he received an unsolicited call from a third-party agency inquiring as to Plaintiff’s interest in automotive insurance. The next day, Plaintiff received a text message from a third-party following up on his purported interest in auto insurance. State Farm moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including ..read more

On May 6, 2024, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed Senate Bill 73 (“SB 73”) into law. SB 73 amends Title 46 of the Official Code of Georgia (“OCGA”), Georgia’s telemarketing law, with the goal of curbing the proliferation of unsolicited telemarketing calls to State residents. Among other revisions, SB 73 amended Georgia’s telemarketing law to: 1) remove the “knowing” requirement for violation of the law; and 2) expand statutory liability beyond the party that called/texted to the advertisers.  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) is a federal statute designed to protect consumer ..read more

If your business operates a website, it is imperative that you comply with the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. Readers of our blog are now aware of the growing influx of class action lawsuits filed against online companies, which allege that use of third-party website tracking software violates California’s wiretapping law. Our readers are likely less familiar with Pennsylvania’s wiretap law, however. Like California, Pennsylvania is a “two-party consent” state, meaning that Pennsylvania’s wiretap law requires that all parties to a telephone call or conversati ..read more

On May 6, 2024, Tarkenton Senior Solutions, LLC. (“Tarkenton”) was sued in the Northern District of Georgia for allegedly violating the Do Not Call provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The National Do Not Call registry was enacted by the federal government under the authority granted to it by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The TCPA generally prohibits companies from placing telemarketing calls to consumers who have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call list.  In Pinn v. Tarkenton Solutions, LLC, Plaintiff alleged that she ..read more