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 ...

*             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 Protection Act (“TCPA”) to calls ...

Two Plaintiffs filed suit relating to calls Defendant made when a relative’s loan became delinquent. Defendant moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”) claims, arguing that the calls were not made using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”). The TCPA prohibits, in part, calls to a person’s cell phone using an ATDS without their prior express consent. The TCPA defines an ATDS as “equipment that ...

Plaintiff filed a putative class action, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, (TCPA) by placing calls and sending text messages using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS). Defendant moved to stay the case pending a ruling by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Barr v AAPC, 140 S.Ct. 812 (Jan. 10, 2020). Plaintiff opposed the Motion, arguing that the decision in AAPC was irrelevant to the merits of the instance case and that ...

Plaintiff, who had a credit card account with Defendant for approximately 18 years, retained counsel to address financial issues facing his household. Counsel prepared a letter of representation and revocation of consent to call Plaintiff, which he sent to Defendant’s headquarters via certified mail. The confirmation notice associated with the letter verified that it was “delivered to the front desk, reception area, or mail room . . . In LAS VEGAS, NV 89169.” Defendant ...

Plaintiff entered into a contract, providing her cell phone number and expressly authorizing Defendant “to contact [her] regarding [her] DISH Network account or to recover any unpaid portion of [her] obligation to DISH, through an automated or predictive dialing system or prerecorded messaging system.” Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant three faxes noting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) prohibition again making any call to their client using an automatic telephone ...

My last blog post (found here) provided a background of the evolving definition of “automated telephone dialing system” (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and described the FCC’s long-running effort to expand the scope of the term.  In recent times, the FCC’s repeated attempts to classify predictive dialers as an ATDS have come under scrutiny.  First, the FCC faced issues with its interpretation in the case ACA Int’l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687, 702-703 (D.C. Circ. 2018), which called into question the ...

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA” or the “Act”) has limited telephone calls that can be placed using certain automated equipment since 1991.  However, since passage of the Act there has been considerable debate about the type of automated equipment subject to the Act’s restrictions.  The TCPA specifically restricts the use of any “automated telephone dialing system” ("ATDS").  The statute defines ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a ...