January 17, 2019

January 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 16, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 15, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

North Carolina Jury Awards $20M Verdict For Violation Of National Do-Not-Call Rules

A Greensboro, North Carolina jury handed down a $20.5 million verdict against Dish Network (“Dish”) last week in a class-action lawsuit, Krakauer v. Dish Network L.L.C., case number 1:14-cv-00333, brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The verdict came after a five-day trial presided over by U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles of the Middle District of North Carolina. Class representative Dr. Thomas Krakauer alleged Dish was responsible for telemarketing calls placed by an authorized Dish dealer to persons whose telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry.

The Federal Trade Commission opened the National Do Not Call Registry in 2003. Since its inception, millions of Americans have entered their telephone numbers on the registry. The plaintiff in the Dish suit, representing 18,000 class members, alleged that he received calls from a Dish retailer despite being on the Do Not Call Registry, and that over 51,000 calls were made to class members in violation of the TCPA.

The calls in question were made by a Dish dealer, Satellite Systems Network (“SSN”). Plaintiffs argued that Dish was responsible for the actions of SSN, despite contractual provisions that sought to place the responsibility for compliance solely on SSN, because the calls were made on Dish’s behalf and Dish allegedly knew of and ultimately benefited from the conduct by obtaining new customers. Plaintiff asserted that Dish turned a blind eye to its dealer’s illegal telemarketing conduct in an attempt to shield itself from liability. After a five-day trial, the jury in the case found that SSN was acting as Dish’s agent when it made the calls at issue and was accordingly responsible for the illegal conduct.

The 10-person jury had the choice of awarding up to $500 for each illegal call made by SSN. Ultimately, the jury awarded $400 per violation of the TCPA, for a total of $20.5 million. This marks one of the first jury verdicts for a class of consumers alleging Do Not Call violations since the enactment of the TCPA in 1991.

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Joseph C. Wylie II, KL Gates Law Firm, Commercial Litigation Attorney
Partner

Mr. Wylie’s practice focuses on complex class-action defense and complex commercial litigation with a particular emphasis on consumer and securities matters. He represents clients in defending against a wide range of individual and class-action consumer claims, including consumer fraud actions and claims brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. He also represents investment advisers and mutual fund families in connection with government investigations and investor claims, including claims made under the Investment Company Act. Mr. Wylie also represents...

312-807-4439
Molly K. McGinley, KLGates Law Firm, Complex Litigation Attorney
Partner

Molly K. McGinley concentrates her practice at K&L Gates in commercial litigation with a focus on complex litigation, including investment company litigation, securities litigation and consumer class action defense. Ms. McGinley is a member of the firm’s Securities and Transactional Litigation Practice and Class Action Litigation Defense Groups. Ms. McGinley has litigated in numerous state and federal jurisdictions, representing a broad range of clients, including small companies, Fortune 500 Companies and investment advisers. She has handled various commercial disputes, including contract and business tort litigation and internal investigations.

312-807-4419
Lexi Bond, Commercial Litigation, KL Gates Law Firm
Associate

Alexandria (Lexi) Bond focuses her practice on commercial litigation, including the representation of clients in contractual disputes, business torts, false advertising and unfair competition claims, consumer complaints, and investment company and securities litigation. Her investment company litigation experience includes representing investment advisers and independent trustees in class actions, derivative lawsuits, and actions brought pursuant to Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Ms. Bond also practices in the areas of regulatory compliance, internal investigations,...

312.807.4238