Last weekend, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo declared a state of emergency in the State due to the coronavirus outbreak. That’s scary enough. But there is an equally scary and somewhat odd consequence of New York’s declared state of emergency: the recently enacted New York Nuisance Call Act kicks in automatically. As a practical matter,
Many children, including myself, were taught the childhood mantra: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” The chant intended to be a retort to name calling—a declaration that you were above the insults. But what about text messages? Could a single text message hurt me in a way that could amount to the harm required to sustain a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claim? On August 28, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit answered this question in the negative with its decision in Salcedo v. Hanna, — F. 3d –, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25967 (11th Cir. Aug. 28, 2019). With Salcedo, the Eleventh Circuit created a potential circuit split by finding that a plaintiff could not rely on a single text message to amount an injury in fact necessary to establish Article III standing for a TCPA action.
The plaintiff filed a TCPA suit after having received a single multimedia text message from his former attorney and that attorneys’ law firm offering a ten percent discount on future services. The Plaintiff alleged this lone message caused him harm by (1) wasting his time during which both he and his phone “were unavailable for otherwise legitimate pursuits,” and (2)”resulted in an invasion of [his] privacy and right to enjoy the full utility of his cellular device.” The Eleventh Circuit rejected both arguments.
A bipartisan, public/private coalition of 51 attorneys general and 12 phone companies have agreed to create the “Anti-Robocall Principles,” a set of eight principles to fight “illegal robocalls” that the phone companies have voluntarily agreed to adopt by incorporation, or continued incorporation into their business practices. The principles are available here and press release is here.
Why it matters: “Illegal and unwanted robocalls continue to harm and hassle people every day. Consumer fraud often originates with an illegal call, and robocalls regularly interrupt our daily lives. Robocalls and telemarketing calls are the number one source of consumer complaints at many state Attorneys General offices, as well as at both the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. State Attorneys General are on the front lines of enforcing do-not-call laws and helping people who are scammed and harassed by these calls.” according to the principles.
The coalition of companies includes twelve major carriers.
On May 17, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would not hear an appeal in Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC v. RingCentral, Inc., apparently satisfied with a Ninth Circuit ruling that the inclusion of a one-line company identifier on a fax cover page was not in violation of the TCPA’s bar on unsolicited advertisements.…
On May 16, 2019, FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly gave a speech at the ACA International Washington Insights Conference in Washington, DC, which gave a preview of how the Commission may shape the TCPA landscape in the near future. Commissioner O’Rielly’s full speech is available here. He gave his thoughts on a number of subjects and some of the highlights are below.
As to the TCPA’s definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS or more commonly known as “autodialer”) litigation post-ACA Int’l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018), the Commissioner correctly noted that the “‘fog of uncertainty’ . . . remains thicker than ever,” with numerous courts struggling to interpret the TCPA and issuing conflicting decisions. He characterized some decisions as “illogically [finding] the FCC’s 2003 and 2008 orders defining an ATDS to be controlling post-ACA.” And, he went on to remark that:
[T]hat just pales in comparison to the medley of courts that have chosen to ignore the DC Circuit [in ACA Int’l] and instead follow the 9th Circuit’s extremely misguided and breathtakingly expansive definition of ATDS [in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018)] as a device that stores numbers to be called, irrespective of whether they have been generated by a random or sequential number generator.
Twombly and Iqbal—two names that invoke fond memories of the first year of law school for the (much) younger attorneys—have defined the bar that each plaintiff must meet to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Walk into any first-year civil procedure class and you’ll hear the students muttering the following like a nursery rhyme or a page from a Dr. Seuss book, “Twombly said ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face’ and Iqbal followed ‘[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” The lesson the students are supposed to take away is that a complaint must connect the dots between a defendant and the claim.
In a recent ruling issued by the Southern District of California, Ewing v. Encor Solar, LLC, No. 18-2247, 2019 WL 277386 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019), the court confirmed that this fundamental requirement applies, unsurprisingly, to Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claims against multiple defendants. In particular, the court dismissed the TCPA claim because the plaintiff failed to identify who actually called him.
Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a Public Notice seeking comment on a petition for an expedited declaratory ruling relating to how the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) applies to the use of soundboard or avatar technology. Specifically, the FCC requests comment on whether “calls using recorded audio clips specifically selected and presented by a human operator in real-time, a tool generally referred to as ‘soundboard technology,’ do not deliver a ‘prerecorded message’ under the [TCPA].” Comments are due on March 15, 2019; the reply comment deadline is March 29, 2019.…
We love us some Jim Croce here at Venable and his 1972 ballad, Operator (That’s Not the Way It Feels), is resonating with us right now. In Operator, Croce sings about a man confessing to an operator about his love for an ex-girlfriend. He needs the operator’s help to find a telephone number for his ex, as she’s moved on and she is no longer at the number he has for her. Ironically, if the heartbroken man were to leave a message for his lost love at her old telephone number, well, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) plaintiffs’ bar might be all over it and allege a violation of the Act for leaving a prerecorded message without the consent of the new owner of that number. Silly? Yes. Possible? Also yes. However, a recent decision out of the U.S. District Court for District of Minnesota – the first of its kind as far as we are aware – gives a bit of security to industry. There, the court applied a “reasonable reliance” test to determine whether a caller could be liable for leaving a prerecorded message for the wrong person when the previous owner of the telephone number had provided his prior express consent to receive calls at that number.
In Stewart L. Roark v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 16-173, 2018 WL 5921652 (D. Minn. Nov. 13, 2018), defendant Credit One Bank placed 140 collection calls to the plaintiff’s cell phone over a three-month period; in four of those calls, the bank left a prerecorded message in the plaintiff’s voicemail box. Credit One, however, was seeking to reach the account holder, rather than the plaintiff. Unbeknownst to Credit One, the account holder, for whom the bank had appropriate TCPA consent, had changed telephone numbers, with his former number being reassigned to the plaintiff. The bank had no relationship with the plaintiff. When the plaintiff finally informed Credit One that he was not the individual whom the bank was trying to reach, the bank immediately added the number to its internal do-not-call list and placed no more calls to him. Nonetheless, the plaintiff alleged that Credit One violated the TCPA.
What is an autodialer under the TCPA? That’s a good question and one with which courts across the country are struggling as much as Charles Darnay struggled with his aristocratic heritage leading up to the French Revolution. My memory of the CliffsNotes to the Dickens classic aside, fortunately, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is, as its Chairman recently described it, “poised” to provide clarity on what types of devices fall within the definition as part of an ongoing declaratory ruling proceeding. Nonetheless, several courts recently have issued divergent decisions regarding technology that constitutes an autodialer under the statute.
The Best of Times: On September 21, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held, in Fleming v. Assoc. Credit Servs., Inc., No. 16-3382, 2018 WL 4562460 (D.N.J. Sept. 21, 2018), that that the defendant’s calling platform (LiveVox’s Human Call Initiator (“HCI”)), which “dials numbers from a list that was not randomly or sequentially generated when the list was created” does not qualify as an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS” or autodialer) under the TCPA based on the statutory definition. In other words, because HCI did not randomly or sequentially generate the numbers that ultimately were contained on the list of numbers called, the platform did not fit the ATDS definition. Specifically, the court explained: “The phrase ‘using a random or sequential number generator,’ I believe, applies to the manner in which the numbers make their way onto the list – not to the manner in which the numbers are dialed once they are on the list.”
Technology is present in nearly everything we do and not only in the form of a smartphone. Now, when people brush their teeth, turn on the car, or tune an instrument, there’s likely some form of digital technology at work. With all of these activities, it can be unclear when the user is manually performing the action versus when it’s become automated. Courts have struggled with this same issue while applying the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) after the D.C. Circuit set aside the FCC’s interpretation of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) in ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018). As we’ve outlined in previous blogs, ACA International clearly invalidated the ATDS standard from the FCC’s 2015 TCPA Order, but, since that decision, district courts have grappled with the validity of the FCC’s 2003 and 2008 predictive dialer rulings, which concluded that predictive dialers that dial from set lists of specific telephone numbers are autodialers.
While several courts have ruled on this issue, there still isn’t a consensus on the proper approach. Last week, however, the Northern District of Illinois issued a well-reasoned and detailed decision that may help guide that debate – Pinkus v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-10858 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2018). The court in Pinkus had to wrestle with the exact set of circumstances that ACA International has thrown into confusion: namely, whether predictive dialing technology qualifies as an ATDS if it does not randomly or sequentially generate the phone numbers to be called. The 2015 FCC Order that was struck down in ACA International, as well as previous FCC orders, included this type of technology under the definition of ATDS.