June 25, 2022

Volume XII, Number 176

Advertisement
Advertisement

June 24, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 23, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

TCPA Litigation Update — The TCPA’s Constitutionality After Barr v. AAPC

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Barr v. AAPC, courts found that violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) occurring between 2015 and July 2020 cannot be enforced because the law was unconstitutional at the time. In December 2020, a court in the Middle District of Florida found that the “Supreme Court concluded that the TCPA was an unconstitutional content-based restriction as written when the statute was amended in 2015. To remedy the unconstitutional statute, the Supreme Court severed the government-debt exception from the TCPA and left the remainder of the TCPA intact.” Hussain v. Synergy, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00038-JSM-PRL, Doc. 74 (M.D. Fl. Dec. 11, 2020). To date, this holding has been adopted by district courts in the Sixth and Eleventh Circuit.

In recent weeks, however, attorneys general from several states have urged the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court ruling dismissing a TCPA case on these grounds. In Lindenbaum v. Realgy, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio reasoned that the TCPA couldn’t be enforced during that period because the Supreme Court said in 2020 that it was unconstitutional for Congress to amend the law in 2015 with a government debt exception. In a recent Amicus Brief, the attorneys general ask for the reversal of the Lindenbaum decision.

Whether the Sixth Circuit will agree with the attorneys general is unknown and largely dependent on the panel. Nevertheless, that decision will have no bearing on the cases currently being decided in the Eleventh Circuit. We will closely monitor any developments from the Sixth Circuit and other district courts as this line of cases continues to make headway across the nation.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 49
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Joshua Briones Litigation Lawyer Mintz
Member / Managing Member, Los Angeles Office

Joshua, Managing Member of the firm’s LA office, is a highly experienced trial lawyer with a national practice. He has received awards and national recognition for his innovative approach and specializes in high-stakes, bet-the-company litigation. He represents clients in such industries as financial services, building products, retail, pharmaceuticals, automotive, professional sports, food and beverage, petroleum, chemical manufacturing, health care, high technology, and higher education. He frequently publishes and lectures before national and local bar and industry...

310-226-7887
Matthew Novian Complex Commercial Litigation Attorney
Associate

Matt focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation, including consumer protection matters. He has experience in drafting briefs and letters to opposing parties and in conducting depositions. In addition, Matt maintains an active pro bono practice, in which he counsels clients in matters related to immigration and domestic violence. He was a Law Clerk at Mintz in 2017. 

While attending law school, Matt was a summer associate at a Los Angeles-based law firm, where he worked on matters involving closely held corporations, commercial real estate disputes, and trademark licensing...

310.226.7842
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement