The Infamous Perrong Strikes Again: Repeat TCPA Litigator Andrew Perrong Deploys TCPA Class Action Against a Construction Company
Good morning TCPA World, I wasn’t surprised when I woke up and saw Mr. Perrong’s name pop up on the docket. Yes, the title of this post kind of gave it away, but what I want to highlight here is the vast array of industries Perrong will dip his toes in. It doesn’t matter if you’re a telemarketer, a political polling company, or in this case a construction company. We have a number of posts on TCPA World talking about the different filings he has made, and while I want to list the different types of businesses Perrong has gone after, that would probably take me all day. Building off that, he isn’t afraid to get into the pockets of the corporate actors, which is another unique and frankly unfair aspect of this case and generally the TCPA. Let’s dive into this new filing in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania titled Perrong v. Delaney Construction Paving, et al., case number 2:22-cv-03261-JMY.
So Perrong is going after both John Delaney, as an individual, as well as the construction companies he operates, Delaney Construction Paving (“DCP”) and other entities under DCP. He asserts ATDS and Pre-recorded messages violations under the TCPA, telemarketer registration violations under Pennsylvania’s mini-TCPA, and DNC violations. He claims that he received calls from DCP, which Delaney himself recorded in an effort to drum up business. Essentially, Perrong claims that Delaney, on behalf of DCP, launched a call campaign to phone numbers in the area to offer driveway paving services. Perrong himself claims to have received at least two calls, one on August 12, 2022 and one on August 13, 2022, neither of which he answered. Like many of the other complaints we have seen from him, Perrong throws out that these calls resulted in him being charged $0.005 and $0.004 – you’re not misreading those figures and no your math isn’t wrong, his purported actual damages amount to less than a penny. One of his claims is based under ATDS provisions of the TCPA, theorizing that the only way Delany reached Perrong’s phone was through an ATDS that generates randomized numbers in the area, given that he and DCP had no prior business relationship.
There are a number of take-aways from this case, but I think the 30,000 ft. view from this one is that no individual and no entity is safe. Many people think that a TCPA claim really only will come knocking on the big bad telemarketing companies doors, but this case highlights that it can apply to anyone, even when there was only a call or two at issue. We will keep our eye on this one and provide updates as they come. Until next time, have a great Thursday TCPA World!