TCPA

Subscribe to TCPA via RSS

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.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were down for the month of June. This reverses the upward swing seen in these filings in May. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were down in May and remained down for June.

More than two years after the Supreme Court released its ruling in Facebook v. Duguid, confirming the meaning of automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a plaintiff has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s application of the Facebook decision. The Facebook ruling effectively closed the door on one of the broadest classes of TCPA-related litigation; since then, plaintiff-side advocates have worked ceaselessly, though largely unsuccessfully, to chip away at the ruling. If the Supreme Court accepts the appeal, this will represent a significant development in the ongoing saga of ATDS litigation.

On June 29, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking clarifying how consumers may revoke consent to receive calls or texts under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The FCC is accepting comments on the proposed rule until July 31, 2023.

On June 28, a magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued a report recommending that the defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied because the plaintiff had standing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) even though the calls in question were not intended for the plaintiff.

On June 30, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s claims that she received five text messages to a cell number that she had placed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry satisfied the demands of Article III even though the actual user of the phone was her thirteen-year-old son.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, the month of May saw a jump significant from the previous month in filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), however, remained down.

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.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, the month of April saw a significant reduction from the previous month in filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as well as a reduction in complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…

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…