iTCPAWorld is a finicky place. One day you’re on top of the (TCPA)world and the next, you’re knocked flat on your back.
Take our friends at Porch, for instance. Earlier this month we reported that the home improvement outfit had evaded a potential TCPA class action in Idaho by convincing the Court that calls to business cell phones do not trigger the TCPA. You might recall at the time I advised not to get too excited because, well, the ruling was a bit off the beaten path.
Well, here’s the other shoe dropping. Just yesterday in Clements v. Porch, Case No. 1:20-cv-00003-SLG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175397 (D. Ak. September 24, 2020) the district court affirmatively rejected Porch’s argument on prudential standing finding that the TCPA does apply to calls to business cell phones after all. While disappointing for Porch—that is potentially now liable for calls it was just told it wouldn’t be liable for– that’s not a very surprising ruling for the reasons I discussed previously.
Nonetheless, the Clements case is not all bad news. The Court found the complaint does not plainly specify that all of the named plaintiffs received a text from the Defendant. As it is unclear which plaintiffs, if any, received texts and whether they received more than one text in a 12 month period (a requirement under 227(c)) the court granted a motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.
The Clements Plaintiffs will likely dust off and file a new complaint and we’ll keep an eye on developments when they do.
