July 11, 2020

Volume X, Number 193

July 10, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 09, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 08, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Eastern District of Michigan Holds That No Private Cause of Action Exists for “Spoofing” Caller ID Info Under the TCPA

In Dobronski v. Selectquote Ins. Servs., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92019, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleged that defendant violated the TCPA and the Michigan Telephone Companies as Common Carriers Act related to three telephone calls.

After filing suit, plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to add and clarify two allegations: (1) that defendant, an insurance broker who solicited clients via phone calls, violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(e) of the TCPA by spoofing inaccurate caller ID information; and (2) that the defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(1) of the TCPA by failing to maintain and make available a do-not-call policy.  The defendant argued that there was no private cause of action under the TCPA for spoofing caller identification, and that of the three calls at issue, it only made the second call with express consent to do so.

The court, in a thorough analysis of § 64.1601(e), determined that there is no private right of action for spoofing caller ID information under the TCPA.  Relying on multiple authorities, the court determined that the purpose of this regulation was to support consumers’ enforcement efforts under the TCPA, rather than creating a new, independent cause of action.

However, the court permitted the amended claim under § 64.1200(d)(1).  Defendant’s contentions regarding the specific background of the calls was a factual dispute reserved for summary judgment.  And unlike § 64.1601(e), it was clear from the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Charvat v. NMP, LLC, 656 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2011) that a private cause of action existed under this regulation.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is due on June 10, 2020. 

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume X, Number 156


About this Author

Jesse Taylor Associate  Columbus complex contract, franchise law, qui tam litigation

Jesse Taylor practices in state and federal court, with experience in complex contract and franchise law and qui tam litigation.

Prior to joining Squire Patton Boggs, he worked as a litigation associate in another top 20 international law firm. Previously, Jesse served as a law clerk to the Honorable Judith E. Levy, US District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, and to the Honorable James G. Carr, US District Court, Northern District of Ohio. In addition to his law firm experience and clerkships, Jesse worked as the online communications director for the Office of the...