The Eastern District of New York Holds that Spending a “Sizeable Minority of Time” at Your Mother’s House Does not Make You a Called Party
Burr & Forman LLP » Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by Joshua H. Threadcraft
4M ago
Bank v. ICOT Holdings, LLC, 18-cv-02554 (AMD) (PK), 2024 WL 278460 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2024) Pro se Plaintiff, an attorney, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that two calls he answered at his mother’s house advertising hearing aids, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) because his mother’s phone number was on the National Do-Not-Call-Registry and nobody had given Defendant express written consent to call the number. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, placing at issue what constitutes a “called party.” The Court stated that to  ..read more
Visit website
Ninth Circuit Holds Text Messages Are Not Prerecorded Calls
Burr & Forman LLP » Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by Joshua H. Threadcraft
10M ago
Trim v Reward Zone USA LLC, No. 22-55517, 2023 WL 5025264 (9th Cir. August 8, 2023) Plaintiff filed a putative class action, contending, in part, that three marketing text messages she received utilized prerecorded voices, therefore, the United States Supreme Court’s Decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 1163 (2021), regarding what constitutes an Automatic Telephone Dialing System, did not prohibit her from proceeding with her case. In advancing this argument, Plaintiff claimed that because the definition of “voice” in Meriam Webster’s dictionary is “an  ..read more
Visit website
Pennsylvania District Court Holds Sequential Calls From a List Does not Violate the TCPA
Burr & Forman LLP » Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by Joshua H. Threadcraft
11M ago
Perrong v. Montgomery County Democratic Committee, et al., No. 22-cv-4475 (E.D. Pa. July 18, 2023) Plaintiff sued Defendants, claiming that they violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition of making certain calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). The only disputed issue was “how the definition of an ATDS applies to a device that does not generate phone numbers from scratch but instead uses a stored list of numbers and ‘randomly’ or ‘sequentially’ dials all the numbers on that list.” Concluding Defendant did not violate  ..read more
Visit website
New Jersey District Court Dismisses TCPA Case with Prejudice for Failure to Properly Identify Defendant
Burr & Forman LLP » Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by Joshua H. Threadcraft
11M ago
Brennan Landy v. Vision Solar, LLC d/b/a Solar Exchange, No. 21-20241 2023 WL 4578993 (D.N.J. July 18, 2023) In this case, Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), by placing more than one unsolicited telemarketing call during a 12-month period without consent to consumers who registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Original Complaint identified Defendant as “Vision Solar, LLC d/b/a Solar Exchange.” Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that no  ..read more
Visit website
Florida Enacts Significant Amendment to Telephone Solicitation Act
Burr & Forman LLP » Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by Joshua H. Threadcraft
1y ago
In July, 2021, the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, F.S.A. § 501.059 (“FTSA”), was amended to create a private right of action for those receiving marketing calls and text messages, giving rise to an onslaught of individual and class action litigation in state and federal courts across the country. On May 25, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed legislation amending the FTSA, significantly impacting future claims brought under the Act, as well as pending, uncertified putative class actions. In pertinent part, the amendment provides: Automated System: An  ..read more
Visit website
Eleventh Circuit Vacates TCPA Class Settlement for Lack of Standing, Suggesting Reconsideration of Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co.
Burr & Forman LLP » Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by Joshua H. Threadcraft
1y ago
Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, No. 21-10199 (11th Cir. July 27, 2022) Plaintiffs’ Claims and Allegations Plaintiff’s claims, and those advanced in two separately filed class action lawsuits alleging violation of the TCPA by making unsolicited promotional/marketing communications, were consolidated after which time the Parties entered into settlement negotiations. Thereafter, Plaintiffs submitted a proposed class settlement agreement defining the class as: All persons within the United States who received a call or text message to his or her cellular telephone from  ..read more
Visit website
United States Supreme Court Weighs in on Definition of Automatic Telephone Dialing System in TCPA
Burr & Forman LLP » Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by Joshua H. Threadcraft
1y ago
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, et. al., No. 19-511, 2021 WL 1215717 (S.Ct. April 1, 2021) On April 1, 2021, the United States Supreme Court released its much anticipated decision addressing the definition the phrase “Automatic Telephone Dialing System” (“ATDS”) used in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”). At issue in the underlying case was whether technology used to send a text message constituted an ATDS. Writing for the Court, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices, Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, wasted no  ..read more
Visit website
New York District Court Stays Putative TCPA Class Action Pending Outcome of Facebook v. Duguid
Burr & Forman LLP » Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by Joshua H. Threadcraft
1y ago
Elzen v. Global Strategy Group, LLC, et al., No. 20-cv-3541 (JPO), 2021 WL 185328 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2021) Plaintiff filed a putative class action, claiming Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA), by sending Plaintiff and others an unsolicited text message survey. The message Plaintiff received stated “DAVID, We’re texting voters about local issues and your opinion matters. Please click to participate:,” providing a link directing Plaintiff to a survey. One Defendant moved to stay the case, contending that resolution of  ..read more
Visit website
Ohio District Court Holds TCPA Unenforceable From 2015 Through 2020
Burr & Forman LLP » Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by Joshua H. Threadcraft
1y ago
Lidenbaum v. Realgy, LLC, 2020 WL 6361915 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2020) Pending before the Court was a class action lawsuit, contending Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 § U.S.C. 227 (“TCPA”). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), contending that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims because they arose during a time that the TCPA included a “government-debt” exception, which exempted calls made to collect a debt owed or guaranteed by the United States held to be unconstitutional in  ..read more
Visit website
Supreme Court Severs Unconstitutional Provision of TCPA Exempting Robocalls Made To Collect Government Debt
Burr & Forman LLP » Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by Joshua H. Threadcraft
1y ago
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., No. 19-631, 2020 WL 3633780 (U.S. July 6, 2020) *             Procedural History of the Case Plaintiffs; political and nonprofit organizations seeking to make political robocalls to cell phones discussing candidates and issues, soliciting donations and conducting polls; filed a declaratory action against U.S. Attorney General William Barr and the Federal Communications Commission (“the government”), asserting that the 2015 exception to application of the Telephone Consumer P ..read more
Visit website

Follow Burr & Forman LLP » Telephone Consumer Protection Act on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR