On January 18, a court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case concluding that the factual issue of whether the proposed class members had suffered an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing based on the receipt of a ringless voicemail was an individualized issue that would predominate over common issues.

On December 13, by a vote of 4-1, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted new rules aimed at “closing the ‘lead generator’ robocall/robotexts loophole.” Specifically, the rule requires telemarketers to obtain consumer consent to receive robocalls and robotexts one seller/brand at a time, instead of allowing a single consent to apply to multiple telemarketers. This is also known as one-to-one consent. The order does not specifically define “robocall” or “robotext.”

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were down for the month of October, but filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) were up. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were also up for the month.

A district court in the District of Arizona granted a motion to dismiss in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case on the basis that multimedia messaging service (MMS) texts do not constitute prerecorded messages unless the audible component plays automatically upon opening.

The Middle District of Tennessee denied a defendant’s summary judgment motion in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case, clearing the way for a lawsuit claiming that the defendant was secondarily liable under an agency theory for calls made by a third-party call service even though a principal-agent relationship was disclaimed by contract.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were back up for the month of July. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were also up for the month.

In Perrong v. Bradford et al, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, an elected official, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by calling his residential phone using a prerecorded message and an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS). He further alleged that his telephone number was registered with both the national and Pennsylvania Do Not Call registries.

Last year, a professional plaintiff obtained a judgment of over $828k in a case alleging 104 calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The district court in the Northern District of West Virginia found that the individual and corporate defendants failed to respond “fulsomely and accurately” to discovery requests and to comply with court orders pertaining to those requests. As a sanction, the district court entered a default judgment against them.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) were slightly up while filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) remained unchanged for the month of July. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were down for the month.