October 13, 2019

October 11, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 10, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

New Case Law Involving The Telephone Consumer Protection Act

This is the fourth part in a series. For further reading, see "ACA v. FCC Close to a Slam Dunk for TCPA Defendants," "TCPA Case Law Update (Vol. 2)," and  "TCPA Case Law Update (Vol. 3)."

If you have seen members of the TCPA plaintiffs’ bar sweating a bit more than usual lately, it’s not just the summer heat—they’re probably concerned about the steady stream of positive cases for the defense bar over the past month. Since our last update, a considerable number of new TCPA decisions have come out, including several circuit level decisions. And while not every case discussed in this edition of the TCPA Case Law Review went the way of the defendants, a clear tendency this summer is for courts to rule against TCPA class action plaintiffs. Let’s hope this is one trend that continues after Labor Day.

As always, we will continue to keep you apprised of developments going forward.  The decisions are listed by issue category in alphabetical order.

  • Agency: The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendant in a TCPA fax case where the plaintiff could not demonstrate the defendant’s knowledge or involvement in the fax campaign because “[n]othing in the statute allows the imposition of liability on an entity wholly unaware of the use of its logo in a fax.”  Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22490, *13–*14 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2018); but see Compressor Eng’g Corp. v. Mfrs. Fin. Corp., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22812, *1 (6th Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (reversing summary judgment for the defendant and holding that, taking all evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable juror could have concluded that defendant edited the fax ads, approved the final drafts and paid for them).

  • ATDS: In Keyes v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138445 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 16, 2018), the Court granted partial summary judgment for the defendant, finding that the defendant’s system was not an ATDS.  The court held that, based on the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ACA International, it was not required to defer to the FCC’s definition of an ATDS on the “capacity” issue.  at *18.  The court found as a matter of law that the system was not an ATDS because “simply calling from a set list is not enough for equipment to constitute an autodialer.”  Id. at *23.  Also notable—the court excluded the testimony of popular TCPA plaintiffs’ expert Jeffrey Hansen.  Id. at *13–*14.  See also Ramos v. Hopele of Fort Lauderdale, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139947 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2018) (analyzing the ACA International decision and finding that defendant’s system was not an ATDS); Lord v. Kisling, Nestico & Redick, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116288 (N.D. Ohio July 12, 2018) (granting motion to dismiss where complaint merely parroted ATDS allegations).

  • Class certification: In KHS Corp. v. Singer Fin. Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143337, *11 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2018), the court denied class certification in a TCPA case where “common questions will not predominate leading to the potential for thousands of mini-trials on the individualized issue of consent.”  See also America’s Health & Res. Ctr., Ltd. v. Promologics, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120590 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2018) (granting in part a motion to strike class allegations).

  • Personal jurisdiction: A court in the District of Connecticut found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant in a TCPA case where the plaintiff failed to adequately plead general or specific personal jurisdiction.  Kaye v. MD TLC, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121226, *15–*16 (D. Conn. July 20, 2018).

  • Settlement approval: The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of approximately $73,000 in attorneys’ fees in connection with a TCPA settlement, despite the requested fee of $233,333. See Camp Drug Store, Inc. v. Cochran Wholesale Pharm., Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20928, *18 (7th Cir. July 27, 2018)

  • Standing: The Eighth Circuit held that there was no Article III standing when the plaintiff “both invited and did not rebuke” the challenged faxes.Louis Heart Ctr., Inc. v. Nomax, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21662, *7 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2018).

  • Solicited fax rule: In an order affirming, in part, a district court’s denial of class certification, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the Sixth Circuit that it was bound by the D.C. Circuit’s invalidation of the Solicited Fax Rule in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCCSee True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19641, *13 (9th Cir. July 17, 2018).

© 2019 Vedder Price

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Blaine C. Kimrey, media defense Litigation, Vedder Price Law Firm Chicago Office
Shareholder

Blaine C. Kimrey is a Shareholder in the Litigation practice area in the firm’s Chicago office.

A former journalist at two daily newspapers (the Austin American-Statesman and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette), Mr. Kimrey is a trial lawyer who has dedicated more than 20 years to working for and defending media entities. Mr. Kimrey’s practice, however, extends well beyond media defense, focusing on a broad range of direct and class action litigation involving topics as diverse as privacy, consumer deception, intellectual property,...

312-609 7865
Bryan Clark Media & Privacy Law  litigation Vedder Price Law Firm Chicago
Associate

Bryan Clark is an Associate at Vedder Price and a member of the Litigation group in the firm’s Chicago office.  He has an extensive media and privacy practice that includes privacy class action defense, mobile-marketing litigation, class action TCPA litigation, copyright litigation, right of publicity litigation, data breach response, FOIA issues, reporter’s privilege issues and prepublication review.

Mr. Clark’s other representative work includes drafting successful dispositive motions in right of publicity and invasion of privacy cases, arguing successful motions to quash on behalf of media entities facing subpoenas, defeating motions for preliminary injunction in intellectual property litigation, and advising advertising and marketing clients on compliance issues. He presents on issues related to digital privacy and data breach before a national audience, such as the ABA Annual Meeting in 2013.

Mr. Clark is a member of the Trial Bar for the Northern District of Illinois and has first-chair trial experience in federal court. As a litigator, Mr. Clark has been involved in a broad range of matters in addition to media and privacy, including topics as diverse as loan enforcement and foreclosure, consumer fraud, environmental, construction, and insurance law. He also has handled a variety of pro bono engagements, including work for nonprofit media entities, representation of an Illinois prisoner with multiple sclerosis, and Section 1983 civil rights litigation

312-609 7810