With the ever-changing case law surrounding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, staying up to date with what cases are relevant and where courts stand on certain, very important definitions, can be an almost impossible task. Further, in the 28 years since the TCPA was enacted, the legislation has been considered outdated by many companies.

As

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently held that a pro se plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to demonstrate that an agency relationship existed. This holding reinforced the need for specificity in Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims that allege vicarious liability.

In Robert D. Kline v. Elite Medical Laboratories

Constitutional challenges to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act may be coming to a head. In a series of rulings this year, courts around the country have struck down an exception to the TCPA’s prohibition against auto-dialed calls to cell phones. Several litigants have filed petitions asking the United States Supreme Court to review these decisions.

Consent and revocation of consent are the mainstay issues in Telephone Consumer Protection Act litigation. On December 11, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia reminded litigants of the requirements to assert a claim under the TCPA.

In Oatman v. Augusta Collection Agency, plaintiff Junior Oatman sued collection company Augusta

In Kempton v. Life for Relief & Dev. Inc., plaintiff Ty Kempton initially filed a class action complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. When faced with the possibility of an adverse ruling, Kempton voluntarily dismissed his claim and refiled

After two and a half years of litigation in the Southern District of New York, the Court entered judgment against Credit One Bank, N.A. on November 22 for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The case presented a variety of contentious TCPA issues, including: (1) whether calling a phone number previously belonging to a

In recent years, courts nationwide have grappled with the statutory definition of an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). While many courts have adhered to the statutory text by requiring a telephone to be capable of random or sequential number generation to qualify as an ATDS, other courts have