August 7, 2020

Volume X, Number 220

August 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 05, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Have We Seen the End of the TCPA? Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument Regarding the Constitutionality of the TCPA

On May 6, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held oral argument in William P. Barr, et al. v. American Association of Political Consultants, et al., No. 19-631 (Nov. 14, 2019). In Barr, the Court was asked to consider the constitutionality of the government debt collection exemption to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Under that exemption, calls placed to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States government are not subject to the TCPA’s autodialing restrictions. The questions before the Court were (1) is the government debt collection exemption unconstitutional under the First Amendment and (2) if so, whether the constitutionality can be addressed by simply severing that exemption from the statute or whether the entire statute should be invalidated. Based on the tone of the oral argument, the tide may be changing for the TCPA.

The questions posed by the justices during the oral argument suggest that the majority have serious concerns about the constitutionality of the government exception and are likely to strike it down. But, in a surprising turn of events, several questions posed by the justices seemed to suggest that the Supreme Court may be receptive to finding the statute to be unconstitutional in its entirety. One of the first questions was from Chief Justice Roberts in which he asked counsel for Barr (Petitioner) to explain the justification for severance—a remedy normally reserved for illegal provisions. Petitioner argued that the exception was recently added and could be easily severed, but several justices observed that severance in this case (which deals with an exception to the automatic telephone dialing system restriction) would have the unusual result of further restricting speech. Because of this, several justices seemed skeptical that severance is the proper remedy.

The questions posed to counsel for the American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. (Respondent) also focused largely on the severance question. But, when asked directly about the constitutionality of the TCPA as a whole, Respondent convincingly argued that it is not constitutional. Respondent argued that the justification for the TCPA’s restrictions on speech (privacy) is directly contradicted by the government’s debt exemption. For example, Respondent reasoned the volume of debt collection calls to student loan borrowers far exceeds the volume of calls that would be made in connection with a political campaign. Thus, Congress simply decided that the government’s right to collect money was more important than a consumer’s right to privacy. Respondent argued that this is a content-based restriction that cannot survive the strict scrutiny test. There were some questions directed at the popularity of the TCPA as a method for limiting unwanted calls, but Respondent argued that there were other, less restrictive means for accomplishing those goals (e.g., the “Do Not Call” regulations). Further, the questions aimed at Respondent seemed somewhat less hostile than those aimed at Petitioner.

While it is unknown how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the constitutionality of the TCPA, based on the questioning during the hearing, there is a real possibility that the Court invalidates the entire statute. The Court’s openness to such a possibility may also explain why the Court has yet to rule on the motion for certiorari in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511 (Oct. 21, 2019), regarding the definition of an ATDS, despite the clearly developing circuit split on this issue.

In light of the oral argument in Barr, companies facing TCPA claims should consider whether or how Barr may impact litigation strategy, including whether a motion to stay pending the Barr decision may be warranted.

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 128

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Partner

Tara provides compliance and litigation advice to financial institutions related to federal and state consumer protection laws.

Tara has extensive experience defending and advising financial institutions in consumer finance litigation and regulatory compliance matters. Tara regularly defends financial institutions in litigation involving various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Truth In Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and various state statutes related to...

214 979 8212
Abigail M. Lyle Regulatory Compliance Attorney Hunton Andrews Kurth Dallas, TX
Partner

Abigail’s practice focuses on regulatory compliance and defending financial institutions in enforcement actions and litigation related to consumer protection laws.

Abigail regularly defends financial institutions in litigation involving lending practices and federal and state consumer financial services laws, and advises clients on a variety of compliance issues, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Regulation B, Fair Housing Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and its state counterparts, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Unfair Deceptive or Abusive Acts or Practices, Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering, and flood insurance issues. She also regularly represents financial institutions, directors, and officers in regulatory enforcement actions by the Department of Justice, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, including responding to “15 day letters,” notices of violation, and administrative proceedings on issues relating to lending practices and debt instruments.

Abigail served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida from 2009-2011. Abigail is admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of Florida, the U.S. District Courts for Eastern, Northern, Southern, and Western Districts of Texas, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Relevant Experience

  • Represented numerous financial institutions, directors, and officers in regulatory enforcement actions and examinations by the Department of Justice, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  • Represented over two dozen financial institutions in Department of Justice referrals and investigations related to fair lending laws.
  • Advised numerous financial institutions regarding analysis of disparate impact related to lending policies and programs.
214-979-8219
Aliza Pescovitz Malouf Consumer Protection Attorney Hunton Andrews Kurth Dallas, TX
Associate

Aliza’s practice focuses on financial institution consumer protection compliance and related litigation.

Aliza regularly defends financial institutions in litigation involving lending practices and federal and state consumer financial services laws, and advises clients on a variety of compliance issues, including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and its state counterparts, Fair Credit Reporting Act, as well as allegations of violations of state common law relating to lending and collection activities. A skilled negotiator, Aliza has...

214-979-8229