Latest Posts
Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-477-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025)
Plaintiff filed a putative class action, claiming that Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) and its implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), by sending him unwanted text messages although his number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that text messages are not telephone calls and that, as a result, Plaintiff could not state a claim because Section 227(c) provides a private right of action to only those who receive “more than one ...
Davis v. Capital One, N.A., No. 24-1507, 2025 WL 2445880 (4th Cir. Aug. 25, 2025).
- Background.
Defendant made prerecorded calls to Plaintiff, a non-customer, attempting to reach a customer that had provided consent to be called before the customer’s cell phone number was reassigned to Plaintiff. In response, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by leaving prerecorded messages on his cell phone without consent. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of individuals who, like ...
Jones, et al. v. Blackstone Medical Services, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01074-JEH-RLH, 2025 WL 2024764 (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2025)
On June 20, 2025, the United States Supreme Court released McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., providing that:
In an enforcement proceeding, a district court must independently determine for itself whether the agency’s interpretation of a statute is correct. District Courts are not bound by the agency’s interpretation, but instead must determine the meaning of the law under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation ...
Butera v Sugarhouse Real Estate Group, L.C., No. 2:25cv00014 DAK-DAO, 2025 WL 1798968 (D. Utah June 30, 2025)
Background
Plaintiff, who registered his number on the National Do Not Call registry (“DNC”) in 2015, listed a piece of property for sale through a brokerage not affiliated with Defendant in 2020. The listing expired and Plaintiff decided not to relist the Property, after which time he began receiving numerous unsolicited calls and text messages from real estate agents and brokers. In 2024, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant. He did not answer the call but about an ...
After receiving a text message from Defendant advertising Defendant’s products, Plaintiff texted “stop,” his request was acknowledged but Defendant sent him three more text advertisements over a nine day period. Apparently, feeling aggrieved by receipt of the three additional texts, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit, claiming that Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), which requires that Parties making certain calls: (1) have written do-not-call procedures for maintaining a do-not-call list; (2) provide training to employees regarding the existence and ...
Schwartz v. Bamz Enterprises, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-608, 2025 WL 1371433 (S.D. Ohio May 12, 2025)
Plaintiff filed suit, claiming Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) when he received multiple telemarketing calls to his cell phone although his number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. According to Plaintiff, he received six calls from individuals who identified themselves by different names, attempting to sell him medical test kits. The first call discussed a cancer testing kit. The remaining calls each purported to offer free COVID test ...
On February 16, 2024, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the TCPA Consent Order adopting various rules governing consumers’ ability to revoke consent to receive certain communications, including that when consent to receive one type of communication is revoked, that revocation applies to all future communications even on unrelated matters unless exempted. The rule was scheduled to take effect on April 11, 2025; however, on April 7, 2025, the FCC found good cause, and that it is in the public interest, to delay application of this portion of the rule until April ...
Hulce v. Zipongo, Inc., No. 24-1623, 2025 WL 829603 (7th Cir. March 17, 2025)
Defendant, a for-profit company that provides nutritional consultation to individuals, contracted with a healthcare plan to provide its services to the plan’s members at no cost. This meant that members would not pay any fee, copay, or coinsurance for Defendant’s services. Instead, Defendant would bill, and was paid by, the healthcare plan. Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Defendant, alleging that approximately 20 calls and text messages he received were “telephone ...
Insurance Marketing Coalition, Ltd. v. Federal Communications Commissions, No. 24-10277, 2025 WL 289152 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025)
“At bottom, the FCC has ‘decreed a duty on [lead generators] that the statute does not require and that the statute does not empower the FCC to impose.’ The FCC therefore exceeded its statutory authority in redefining ‘prior express consent’ to include the additional prior express consent’ restrictions.”
With these words, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, vacated Part III.D of the FCC’s 2023 Order requiring ...
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 ...