On Nov. 13, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, LLC, after the Fourth Circuit vacated a lower court ruling regarding what constitutes an “unsolicited advertisement” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). No. 17-1705, 2018 WL 3127423, at *1 (2018). The Supreme Court is set … Continue Reading
What constitutes an autodialer or “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is in flux. Under the statute, an “automatic telephone dialing system” is defined as “equipment that has the capacity” to “store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator,” and “to dial … Continue Reading
On March 16, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a long-anticipated decision that vacated in part, and affirmed in part, portions of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) July 10, 2015, Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order (the Order) that gave controversial interpretations of key provisions of the Telephone … Continue Reading
On October 23, 2015, the Third Circuit vacated a summary judgment decision in Yahoo, Inc.’s favor based on a recent Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) order that expanded the definition of an “autodialer” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Dominguez v. Yahoo, Inc., No. 14-1751, slip op. at 9 (3d Cir. Oct. 23, 2015). The … Continue Reading
On Friday, the Sixth Circuit declared that a debtor who provides a cellphone number to a creditor has consented to receiving calls, and the creditor does not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, by directing repeated, automated calls to his cellphone seeking payment. In the case of Hill v. Homeward … Continue Reading
Last month, in a case of first impression, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion finding that unsolicited faxes intended strictly for informational purposes were not “advertisements” and therefore not actionable under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. 227 et. seq. Sandusky Wellness Center v. Medco Health Solutions, No. 14-4201 (6th … Continue Reading
On September 9, 2014, in Campbell Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014), the Supreme Court held that Campbell Ewald could be held liable under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for text messages it sent to individuals concerning Navy recruitment. The Court found that the plaintiff’s individual claim was not moot, … Continue Reading