October 18, 2019

October 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 16, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Reminder: Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Claims Are Arbitrable

The District of Massachusetts recently found that TCPA claims arising from debt collection calls fall within the scope of an arbitration agreement that covered disputes relating to “violations of statute” or “the impositions or collection of principle.”  Cyganiewicz v. Sallie Mae, Inc., Nos. 13-40068, 13-40067, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153554, 153556, at *7 (D. Mass. Oct. 24, 2013).

In Cyganiewicz, plaintiffs brought suit against Sallie Mae, claiming that its collections practices violated the TCPA.  Plaintiffs were the borrower and the co-signor on three promissory notes, all of which contained arbitration agreements that could have been (but were not) rejected by sending a signed rejection notice to Sallie Mae within sixty days of the disbursement of the loan.  Id. at *2.  Plaintiffs alleged that Sallie Mae made calls from automated dialing machines to collect the outstanding balance of their loans, including approximately 147 calls after plaintiffs requested that the calls stop.  Plaintiffs argued that their arbitration agreements were not enforceable and that, even if they were, their TCPA claims were not arbitrable.   The court found otherwise and granted Sallie Mae’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The court held that plaintiffs’ TCPA claims unambiguously fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement because they relate to the collection of debt and to an alleged violation of a statute.  In doing so, it rejected the argument that the arbitration agreement did not cover the plaintiffs’ claims because it spoke in terms of “violations of statute” generally rather than “violations of the TCPA” specifically—an argument that ignored the strong federal policy that favors arbitration under the FAA.

The court also held that Congress did not preclude waiver of judicial remedies for TCPA claims.  Such an intent, the court found, can only be shown by means of statutory text, legislative history, or “some inherent conflict between arbitration and [the statute’s] underlying purposes.”  Id. at *13.  Plaintiffs argued that Congress intended to preclude waiver of judicial (as opposed to arbitral) remedies because it described TCPA’s remedies in terms of court suits.  See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) (permitting “an action” to be brought “in an appropriate court”).  The court rejected that argument, noting that the Supreme Court recently rejected a substantially similar argument in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012).  This should not be surprising, given ComputCredit’s straightforward, common-sense holding:

The flaw in this argument is its premise: that the disclosure provision provides consumers with a right to bring an action in a court of law.  It does not….  It is utterly commonplace for statutes that create civil causes of action to describe the details of those causes of action, including the relief available, in the context of a court suit.  If the mere formulation of the cause of action in this standard fashion were sufficient to establish the “contrary congressional command” overriding the FAA, valid arbitration agreements covering federal causes of action would be rare indeed.  But that is not the law….  Thus, we have repeatedly recognized that contractually required arbitration of claims satisfies the statutory prescription of civil liability in court.

Id. at 669-71 (emphasis added).

A copy of the Cyganiewicz decision is available here.

©2019 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Daniel E. Brewer, Attorney, Drinker Biddle, Philadelphia, Commercial Litigation
Associate

Daniel E. Brewer has experience in a variety of complex commercial matters, including consumer class actions, complex business disputes, products liability, shareholder derivative actions and other corporate governance matters. In the course of his practice, Daniel handles many aspects of civil litigation, ranging from pre-litigation counseling, to discovery and dispositive motion practice, to trial advocacy and post-trial proceedings. He represents companies and individuals in a broad range of industries, including banking, telecommunications,...

215-988-3370
Michael Daly, Drinker Biddle Law Firm, Philadelphia, Litigation and Retail Attorney
Partner

Michael P. Daly defends class actions and other complex litigation matters, handles appeals in state and federal courts across the country, and counsels clients on maximizing the defensibility of their marketing and enforceability of their contracts. A recognized authority on class action and consumer protection litigation, he often speaks, comments, and writes on recent decisions and developments in the class action arena. He is also a founder of the firm’s TCPA Team; the senior editor of the TCPA Blog, which provides important information and insight about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; and a senior member of the firm's Class Actions Team and interdisciplinary Retail Industry Team.

Committed to civil rights and civic engagement, Michael has spearheaded public interest matters meant to prevent racial discrimination, protect the rights of the disabled and incarcerated, prohibit the use of unverifiable voting systems, and preclude the misuse of our laws and abuse of our civil justice system. One of his most recent public interest matters resulted in a landmark settlement that put an end to decades of discrimination by administrative agencies that had refused to make important information about public benefits programs available in alternative formats that were accessible to the blind and visually impaired. As a result of the settlement, thousands of class members have already requested and received documents in accessible alternative formats.

215-988-2604