Photo of Rachelle Pointdujour

Rachelle Pointdujour

Subscribe to Rachelle Pointdujour's Posts

Rachelle is an associate in the firm's Consumer Financial Services Practice Group. She focuses her practice on representing insurers and managed care organizations in litigation.

Contact:Read more about Rachelle Pointdujour

The Eleventh Circuit has now joined seven other circuits in holding that receipt of unwanted text messages constitutes concrete injury for standing. On July 24, the Eleventh Circuit issued an en banc decision in Drazen v. Pinto, holding that a plaintiff who received a single, unwanted text message has standing to sue under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The court departed from its earlier ruling in Salcedo v. Hanna, which held that a single unsolicited text message is but a “brief, inconsequential annoyance [] categorically distinct from those kinds of real but intangible harms” that confer Article III standing.…

On June 1, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Dickson v. Direct Energy, LP, holding that the plaintiff’s claims that he received a single ringless voicemail (RVM) for commercial purposes satisfy the demands of Article III because his alleged injury under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) constitutes a concrete harm.

In Dickson, the plaintiff alleged that Direct Energy delivered multiple RVMs to his cellular phone advertising its services. RVM technology allows a party to deposit voicemails directly into a recipient’s voicemail box, without having to place a traditional call to the recipient’s wireless phone. During discovery, an expert witness concluded that of the multiple RVMs the plaintiff received, only one originated from Direct Energy. The trial court held that the plaintiff’s receipt of a single RVM did not constitute concrete harm sufficient for Article III standing because: (1) the plaintiff could not recall what he was doing at the time he received the RVM, (2) the plaintiff was not charged for the RVM, (3) the RVM did not tie up the plaintiff’s phone line, and (4) the plaintiff spent a small amount of time reviewing the RVM.…

On May 10, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Pet Supermarket, Inc. v. Eldridge, holding that the plaintiff and putative class representative lacked standing to pursue his class action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In Eldridge, the plaintiff visited a Pet Supermarket store where he learned…

As discussed here, on April 7, the Washington State legislature passed HB 1051, also known as the Robocall Scam Protection Act, expanding the scope of existing provisions of Washington’s consumer protection laws regulating robocalls and telephone solicitations to prohibit abusive telephone communication practices. On April 20, Governor Inslee signed the bill into law. It…

On April 7, the Washington State legislature passed HB 1051, also known as the Robocall Scam Protection Act, which expands the scope of existing provisions of Washington’s consumer protection laws regulating robocalls and telephone solicitations to prohibit abusive telephone communication practices. HB 1051 will become law once it is signed by Governor Inslee.

HB…

In a class action lawsuit against Pisa Group, Inc. for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the plaintiff moved to certify a class of all persons in the United States who received more than one telephone solicitation call from defendant more than 31 days after registering their phone numbers with the National…