October 16, 2019

October 16, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 15, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 14, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

TCPA Defendant Allowed to Seek Indemnification from Plaintiff’s Daughter, the Intended Recipient of its Debt-Related Calls

One of the central issues that was before the D.C. Circuit in ACA International v. FCC was whether the term “called party” refers to the intended or the unintended recipient of a call. In its July 10, 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order, the FCC interpreted the term to be the current “subscriber” on the account to which the phone number is assigned or “the non-subscriber customary user of the phone.” Under this interpretation, businesses that try in good faith to contact consumers who have consented to receive such calls face significant liability with minimal recourse, when those calls reach someone else. The D.C. Circuit set aside the FCC’s “treatment of reassigned numbers as whole,” which includes its interpretation of called party. In light of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, the FCC is currently seeking comment on critical TCPA issues with an eye toward taking a much broader view of the TCPA landscape than it did in its 2015 TCPA Order. In the meantime, one business involved in a TCPA action is seeking indemnification from the consumer it intended to reach in making the calls that form the basis of the TCPA action against it.

In Tucker v. Credit One Bank, plaintiff alleged that Credit One violated the TCPA by calling his cellular telephone number hundreds of times over a period months using an ATDS in an attempt to collect a credit card debt. Plaintiff alleged that he informed Credit One that he was not the person Credit One was attempting to contact and requested that the calls stop. Credit One’s factual investigation into the allegations revealed that the calls placed to the plaintiff’s cellular number were intended for his daughter, Jessica Tucker a/k/a Jessica Patino (“Patino”). As it turned out, when Patino applied for a credit card with Credit One and completed the account verification process, she provided the cellular number at issue as a secondary contact number. Shortly after activating her card, Patino defaulted on her payments and Credit One began calling the provided cellular number in an attempt to reach her. After learning in discovery that Plaintiff’s daughter had provided the number involved, Credit One sought leave to file a third-party complaint against Patino for claims of contractual indemnification and negligent misrepresentation.

According to the third-party complaint, under the terms of the cardholder agreement, Patino expressly authorized Credit One to contact her at any phone number, including cellular numbers, she provided to Credit One or that Credit One obtained through other means. Also under the terms of the cardholder agreement, Patino agreed to indemnify Credit One if she provided a telephone number to which she was not the subscriber. The indemnification provision reads:

If you provide telephone number(s) for which you are not the subscriber, you understand that you shall indemnify us for any costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred as a result of us contacting or attempting to contract you at the number(s).

To support its negligent misrepresentation claim, Credit One alleged that Patino’s representation—that she owned and could lawfully be contacted at the secondary contact number regarding her financial obligations to Credit One—was false based on plaintiff’s allegations regarding his use of the number.

Although plaintiff opposed Credit One’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint as untimely, the court granted Credit One’s motion finding that Credit One had acted diligently, and that plaintiff would not be prejudiced.

As businesses anxiously await the FCC’s next steps in light of the D.C. Circuit’s now-final decision in ACA International v. FCC, at least one business is taking action and seeking indemnification from the consumer who provided the cellular telephone number at issue and the consent to call that number. Whether other businesses will pursue similar actions against their own customers remains to be seen, however. As individual consumers are generally unable to meaningfully indemnify a TCPA judgment and related defense costs, the absence of the family dynamic at play here may well lead to the conclusion that such third-party actions are not worth the effort.

©2019 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Sheldon Eisenberg, Drinker Biddle Law Firm, Los Angeles, Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Attorney
Partner

Sheldon Eisenberg handles complex litigation matters for clients, including class actions and entertainment industry, commercial litigation, and intellectual property matters. He is the regional partner in charge of Drinker Biddle’s Los Angeles office.

With more than 30 years of legal experience, he has successfully represented his diverse group of clients through effective pretrial strategies, well-crafted motions and, when necessary, taking cases to trial in state and federal courts or arbitration. Sheldon’s clients include...

310-203-4035
John Yi, Drinker Biddle Law Firm, Philadelphia, Communications and Securities Law Attorney
Associate

John S. Yi represents clients in civil and criminal litigations in federal court, as well as investigations and enforcement actions by the United States Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and other regulatory bodies. John has assisted clients with internal investigations and compliance strategies. John also defends a number of class action cases with a wide variety of claims including issues arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). John is a consistent contributor to the firm’s TCPA blog.

John also is a contributor to the firm's SEC Law Perspectives Blog, which provides reports, discussions, and analyses on noteworthy trends in enforcement and regulatory activity of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other agencies, such as the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

John maintains an active pro bono practice and has served as an advocate for students with special needs in Philadelphia in collaboration with the Education Law Center. While in law school, John was a judicial intern for the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden.

215-988-2553