Those of us who have been litigating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) have spent the better part of the last decade trying to determine what constitutes an automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). The answer seemed clear to many when the statute was enacted in 1991 because telemarketers were the focus, cell phones were expensive and uncommon and the plain language of the statute defined an ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such ...
On October 3, 2018, the FCC issued a Public Notice to seek comment on what constitutes an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)[1] in the wake of the Ninth Circuit's Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, 14-56834, 2018 WL 4495553 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2018) decision last month. Under the TCPA, an ATDS is defined as equipment that has the capacity to "(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers."[2] The FCC noted that the Marks court expanded this ...
In Gonzalez v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 5:18-cv-340-Oc-30PRL, 2018 WL 4217065 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2018), the Middle District of Florida determined that the D.C. Circuit's opinion in ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) [hereinafter "ACA"], vacated the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") 2003, 2008, and 2015 Orders interpreting the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS").
The plaintiff, Wilfredo Gonzalez ("Plaintiff"), alleged that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ("Ocwen") used an ATDS to place approximately 500 calls to his ...
In Washington v. Six Continents Hotels, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03719-ODW-JEM, 2018 WL 4092024 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), the Central District of California found that ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) [hereinafter ACA], set aside all prior FCC guidance regarding the definition of an autodialer.
The plaintiff, Eric Washington ("Plaintiff"), alleged that Six Continents Hotels, Inc. ("Six Continents") sent him numerous unsolicited text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ...
In Gensel v. Performant Technologies, Inc., No. 13-C-1196, 2015 WL 6158072, (E.D. Wisc. Oct. 20, 2015), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Performant Technologies, Inc.'s ("Performant") motion to continue the stay pending judicial review of the FCC's July 10 Order. Plaintiff filed suit against Performant alleging violations of the TCPA based on several calls she received from Performant on her cell phone. Plaintiff's cell phone provider assigned her a number that was previously assigned a person who defaulted on a student loan. Performant ...
On August 11, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fined Travel Club Marketing, Inc. and its owner $2.96 million dollars for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. The TCPA prohibits, amongst other things, the use of an automated telephone dialing system or pre-recorded voice to make telephone calls to a cellular telephone without prior express consent. The Florida based telemarketing firm is alleged to have made 185 such calls to more than 142 cellular telephone numbers, many of which were listed on the National Do ...
It would be difficult to identify a federal circuit court of appeals that has released a larger number of influential consumer finance decisions in the last year than the Eleventh Circuit. And last week, the court continued its recent consumer finance trend. Before Friday's landmark FDCPA decision in Davidson v. Capital One (covered in a separate blog post), the court again waded into the turbulent waters of the TCPA. On Thursday, the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in Murphy v. DCI Biologicals Orlando, LLC, --- F.3d ---, No. 14-10414 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015), in which another ...