Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00452/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00452-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

15-cv-00452-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS DERBY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AOL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00452-RMW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 18

Before the court is defendant AOL’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff 

Nicholas Derby. Dkt. No. 18. The court held a hearing on the motion on May 29, 2015. For the 

reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arise arises out of three unsolicited text messages that plaintiff received through 

defendant’s AOL Instant Messenger (“AIM”) service, and a confirmation text from AOL to 

plaintiff following plaintiff’s request to block future messages from AIM. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 18–20. 

Defendant AOL, a mobile social networking and internet company, operates an instant messaging 

system called AIM. Id. ¶¶ 6, 14. According to the complaint, sometime in the last several years 

AOL implemented the ability to send messages from AIM to cellular telephones via Short 

Message Services (“SMS”), also known as text messaging. Id. ¶¶ 11, 14. The system allows AIM 

users to input a mobile phone number on their computer and send that number a text message 

Case 5:15-cv-00452-RMW Document 28 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 12
15-cv-00452-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

through AIM. Id. ¶¶ 14, 16. The system utilizes abbreviated phone numbers known as “short 

codes” to send the message, so when the recipient receives the text message, they can reply to the 

short code with a text message of his or her own. Id. ¶ 14, 15. AOL receives the response text sent 

to the short code and forwards it to the AIM user’s client on his or her computer. Id. ¶ 19, 20.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about June 15, 2014 he received three unsolicited text messages 

sent through AIM and intended for someone named Sy. Id. ¶¶ 18–20. Although the complaint does 

not so allege, presumably the three texts were the result of the sender inputting an incorrect phone 

number, which happened to be plaintiff’s. The messages listed the short code “265060” in the 

“from” field, which the complaint alleges is a short code operated by AOL. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff 

followed AOL’s instructions for blocking the transmission of such AIM text messages in the 

future by sending a text to the “265060” short code with the message: “block <[Name of AOL 

user]>.”1 Id. ¶ 21. Immediately thereafter plaintiff received a response from AOL stating: 

“Messages from <[Name of AOL user]> have been blocked. To unblock, reply ‘unblock 

<Username>’ or reply ‘HELP’ for more options.” Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff alleges that he never signed up 

to receive texts through AIM, and did not provide AOL or any of AOL’s users with consent to 

receive text messages. Id. ¶ 25.

Plaintiff alleges that AOL’s practice of permitting AIM users to send text messages to 

mobile phone numbers without obtaining the recipients prior express consent violates Section

227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Id. ¶ 36; see also 47 

U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). Plaintiff proposes to represent a class of persons who received 

unsolicited text messages, defined as follows:

All persons in the United States and its Territories whose cellular 

telephones were sent one or more text messages by AOL’s instant 

messenger system where the called party did not provide express 

consent to AOL to send such text message.

Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 26. The complaint alleges that AOL’s practice of sending text messages through AIM 

to mobile phones without the recipient’s prior express consent violates the privacy rights of the 

 1 The complaint does not specify the AOL user’s name “for privacy consideration.” Dkt. No. 1, at 

5 n.1. 

Case 5:15-cv-00452-RMW Document 28 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 12
15-cv-00452-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

recipients and has caused statutory and actual damages which entitle the members of the proposed 

class to a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation under Section 227(b)(3)(B) of the 

TCPA. Id. ¶ 36.

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on February 2, 2015. See Dkt. No. 1. On April 3, 2015 

defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the complaint fails to state an actionable 

claim under TCPA. Dkt. No. 18. Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 8, 2015, see Dkt. No. 22, and 

defendant replied on May 22, 2015, see Dkt. No. 23.

II. ANALYSIS

Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 18, at 3. Such a 

motion tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 

2001). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient, the court must accept as true all of the 

factual allegations contained in the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

However, the court need not accept as true “allegations that contradict matters properly subject to 

judicial notice or by exhibit” or “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions 

of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 

2008) (citation omitted). While a complaint need not allege detailed factual allegations, it “must 

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility 

standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that 

a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal citation omitted).

The TCPA makes it unlawful “to make any call . . . using any automatic telephone dialing 

system . . . to any telephone number assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service . . . .” 47 U.S.C. 

Case 5:15-cv-00452-RMW Document 28 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 12
15-cv-00452-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

§ 227(b) (1)(A)(iii).2 The TCPA defines an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) as 

“equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a 

random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” Id. § 227(a)(1). When 

Congress enacted the TCPA, it directed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to 

promulgate regulations implementing the Act’s requirements. Id. § 227(b)(2). Pursuant to this 

mandate, the FCC has construed the statutory term “automatic telephone dialing system” beyond 

systems which use a random or sequential number generator to make telemarketing calls to 

include systems which have the capacity to “dial stored numbers without human intervention.” See

18 F.C.C.R. 14014, 14091– 93 (2003); 23 F.C.C.R. 559, 566–67 (2008); 27 F.C.C.R. 15391, 

15392 n.5 (2012). In particular, the FCC found that predictive dialers fall into the statutory 

definition of an ATDS because “[t]he basic function of such equipment [is] ... the capacity to dial 

numbers without human intervention.” In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the 

Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 18 F.C.C.R. 14014, 14091–93 (July 3, 2003). Accordingly, 

courts have held that a system need not send messages to completely random numbers, and that an 

automated system delivering text messages to an uploaded list of hundreds or thousands of 

predetermined numbers can be considered an ATDS. See McKenna v. WhisperText, Case No. 14-

0424, 2015 WL 428728 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015); see also Sterk v. Path, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 3d 813, 

819–20 (N.D. Ill. 2014).

The three initial texted received by plaintiff involve different issues from the confirmation 

reply plaintiff received following his opt-out, and the court addresses them separately.

A. The Initial Text Messages

AOL’s central argument on this motion is that the AIM system at issue in this case is not 

an ATDS because it requires human intervention to send text messages. Dkt. No. 18, at 5–7. AOL 

argues that the complaint affirmatively alleges that AIM relies on human intervention to transmit 

text messages to recipients’ cell phones. Id. For example, the complaint alleges that in this case, 

 2 A text message is a “call” under the TCPA. See Gomez v. Campbell–Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871, 

874 (9th Cir. 2014).

Case 5:15-cv-00452-RMW Document 28 Filed 06/01/15 Page 4 of 12
15-cv-00452-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“[o]ne of [AOL’s] customers . . . prompted” AIM to transmit a text to plaintiff’s mobile phone. 

Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 18. According to the complaint, plaintiff was sent an unsolicited text message when 

an AIM user “inputted a mobile phone number” and directed the system to send plaintiff a text 

message, the contents of which were composed by the AIM user. Id. ¶¶ 17–20. Furthermore, the 

complaint describes the AIM system as “designed . . . to rely on . . . mobile phone numbers 

inputted by its customers.” Id. ¶ 16.

Plaintiff responds by urging the court to draw a distinction between “conduct that triggers 

dialing” of a mobile phone number, and “the actual act of dialing” that number. Id. at 5. Plaintiff 

contends that where there is human intervention in the form of some conduct that prompts an 

automatic system to dial a number, the system qualifies as an ATDS. Id. However, plaintiff cites 

no authority for the distinction “between a human user who requests a call or message be sent on 

his behalf, and the entity that actually owns, uses, and operates the equipment that dials the phone 

number without human intervention.” Dkt. No. 22, at 1. The cases plaintiff does cite in support of 

his argument that AIM employs an ATDS are either distinguishable or support dismissal of his 

claims.

Plaintiff relies heavily on Sterk v. Path, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 3d 813 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Dkt. No. 

22, at 6–7. Sterk involved the following system: Path prompted users of the Path service to upload 

their contacts upon joining the service, and would add these numbers to a list. Sterk, 46 F. Supp. 

3d at 818–19. Path would then use automated equipment to make calls from that list. The court 

found that the equipment used by Path, which made calls from a stored list without human 

intervention, was comparable to the predictive dialers that the FCC has found to qualify as an 

ATDS. The court noted that “the uploading of call lists from Path users is essentially the same as 

when a call list is entered by a telemarketer in a database. It is the ultimate calling from the list by 

the automated equipment that is the violation of the TCPA.” Id. at 819. The court rejected Path’s 

argument that a user’s decision to upload their contacts constituted human intervention so as to 

disqualify the system as an ATDS. Id. 

The court first notes that Sterk is an out-of-Circuit case which is in conflict with rulings 

Case 5:15-cv-00452-RMW Document 28 Filed 06/01/15 Page 5 of 12
15-cv-00452-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

from this District. See McKenna, 2015 WL 428728 (finding a similar system to not qualify as an 

ATDS because it was the product of human intervention). Furthermore, the court finds that Sterk

does not support plaintiff’s argument that AOL uses an ADTS. Whereas Sterk involved the 

sending of promotional text messages to numbers in a Path database populated by Path users who 

elected to upload their contact lists to Path, this case involves personalized text messages, 

composed by individual AIM users, sent to numbers chosen and manually inputted by the users. In 

Sterk the Path system determined which number to call or text (from the user-provided list of 

numbers), when to call, and what the message would be. Here, the AIM user has control over each 

of these variables, and the user is simply using AIM to send a text to someone containing a 

personalized message.

Plaintiff also discusses Fields v. Mobile Messengers Am., Inc., Case No. 12-5160, 2013 

WL 677076 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2013), in support of its argument that no human intervention is 

required to send the AIM messages at issue in this case. Dkt. No. 22, at 7. Plaintiff argues that 

Fields “made clear [that] it is the actual ‘dialing’ or ‘sending’ of text messages from the system 

itself—regardless of any ‘prompting’ by the user—that defines an ATDS.” Id. The court finds 

Fields distinguishable. The court in Fields concluded that the system at issue in that case 

functioned like a predictive dialer. 2013 WL 677076, at *3 (“Like predictive dialers, mBlox’s 

equipment receives numbers from a computer database . . . and then dials those numbers without 

human intervention.”) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Further, the defendant in 

Fields admitted that there was no human interaction or intervention in sending text messages from 

the system at issue. Id. The court also noted that defendant’s “equipment has the capacity to send 

millions of texts per month and that the temporal manner in which the texts were sent indicates 

that human agency was not involved.” Id. Like Sterk, Fields involved an automated process of 

sending automatically-generated promotional texts to lists of mobile phone numbers. This stands 

in clear contrast to the system alleged in the complaint, which sends texts only at the direction of 

AIM users, and which contain personalized messages composed by such users. The recipient’s 

number does not come from a list, but rather is provided by the AIM user who directs AOL to 

Case 5:15-cv-00452-RMW Document 28 Filed 06/01/15 Page 6 of 12
15-cv-00452-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

send the text in the first place. There are no allegations in the complaint that suggest that the AIM 

system could perform these tasks without human intervention, and the allegations in the complaint 

demonstrate that had an AIM user not inputted plaintiff’s mobile phone number, composed a text 

message, and directed AIM to send it to plaintiff, he would not have received the text messages at 

issue. 

The court also notes that at least two cases cited by plaintiff contradict plaintiff’s position 

in this case. See Johnson v. Yahoo!, Inc., Case No. 14-2028, 2014 WL 7005102 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 

2014); Glauser v. GroupMe, Inc., Case No. 11-2584, 2015 WL 475111 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2015). 

For example, the court in Johnson v. Yahoo!, Inc., unambiguously held that “[w]hen a user sends a 

personalized message to a contact, it is clear that that transmission involves human intervention.”

2014 WL 7005102, at * 5. The system at issue in Johnson allowed Yahoo users to send text 

messages to people in their contact lists by clicking the contact’s name and composing a message, 

and it was these messages that the court found clearly involved human intervention.3 The court 

finds that the facts of Johnson closely parallel those in this case and support dismissal of Derby’s 

claim.

Other courts have also found human intervention in circumstances involving far less user 

involvement and far more automation that alleged in the complaint in this case. In Gragg v. 

Orange Cab Co., the court found that a computerized taxi dispatch system did not qualify as an 

ATDS. 995 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1189 (W.D. Wash. 2014). After a passenger requested a taxi with 

the system, drivers could “accept” the fare and agree to pick up the passenger. Once a driver 

accepted the fare, the system would compose and transmit a text message to the passenger 

informing him or her that the driver was on the way. Although the system composed and sent the 

text automatically, the court held that the system was not an ATDS because the driver’s input 

(pressing “accept”) was required before the system could draft and send the message. “The system 

 3 The Johnson court reserved judgment on other messages that were sent automatically by Yahoo 

at other times, for various purposes such as informing the recipient that their opt-out of the texting 

system had expired. 2014 WL 7005102, at * 5.

Case 5:15-cv-00452-RMW Document 28 Filed 06/01/15 Page 7 of 12
15-cv-00452-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

is able to dial and transmit the dispatch notification only after the driver has physically pressed 

‘accept’: human intervention is essential.” Id. at 1194. Similarly, in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, 

LLC, the court held that an SMS platform did not qualify as an ATDS where telephone numbers 

were uploaded to the texting system only through “human curation and intervention.” Case No. 

14-348, 2014 WL 5422976, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014). 

In sum, the court finds that the allegations of the complaint show that extensive human

intervention is required to send text messages through defendant’s AIM service.4 Accordingly, the 

court concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim for relief under the TCPA because the

AIM system does not employ an ATDS, and GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the 

three initial text messages sent by defendant’s AIM service.

B. The Later Opt-Out Confirmation Text

In addition to the initial three text messages plaintiff received from AIM, plaintiff’s TCPA 

claim is also based on the confirmation text plaintiff received from AOL after texting AOL 

instructions to block any further messages like the initial three. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 22. Unlike the first 

three, the confirmation text was not composed by an AIM user, and was sent automatically by 

AOL in response to plaintiff’s text requesting that future messages be blocked. Despite these 

differences, the court concludes that the confirmation text is also not actionable under the TCPA.

Defendant argues in its motion to dismiss that “courts have consistently rejected TCPA 

claims resting upon similar ‘confirmation’ text messages following a text by the plaintiff to the 

defendant requesting the confirmed action.” Dkt. No. 18, at 7. Defendant identifies three reasons 

that the confirmation text should be found not actionable: (1) plaintiff knowingly released his 

 4 As plaintiff notes in his opposition, several of the cases discussed herein were decided on 

motions for summary judgment rather than at the pleading stage. Dkt. No. 22, at 11–12. However,

Derby’s affirmative allegations of the need for human intervention by an AIM user when the

sending a text preclude the need for discovery to address whether Derby has alleged the use of an 

ATDS. See, e.g., Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988–89 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A 

plaintiff can plead himself out of court by alleging facts which show that he has no claim ....”) 

(citation omitted); see also McKenna, 2015 WL 428728, at *4 n.36 (finding affirmative 

allegations of human intervention precluded the need for discovery regarding the specifics of the 

defendant’s system).

Case 5:15-cv-00452-RMW Document 28 Filed 06/01/15 Page 8 of 12
15-cv-00452-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

phone number to AOL and thereby consented to be called at that number; (2) the confirmation text 

relied on human intervention—plaintiff’s own text to AOL requesting that future texts be blocked; 

and (3) imposing liability for consumer-friendly confirmation texts like that at issue here 

“stretches the TCPA beyond the realm of reason” and is contrary to the public policy goals of the

TCPA. Dkt. No. 18, at 8–10. In support of its arguments, defendant cites several cases in which 

courts dismissed actions where TCPA liability was premised on confirmation texts like that 

alleged here. See, e.g., Roberts v. PayPal, Inc., Case No. 12-0622, 2013 WL 2384242, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. May 30, 2013) appeal docketed, No. 13-16304 (9th Cir. 2013); Friedman v. Massage Envy 

Franchising, LCC, Case No. 12-2962, 2013 WL 3026641, at *5 (S.D. Cal. June 13, 2013); 

Ryabyshchuck v. Citibank (S.D.) N.A., Case No. 11-1236, 2012 WL 5379143, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 

30, 2012); Holt v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, Case No. 11-3046 (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2013). 

Plaintiff argues in opposition that where an individual was originally sent an unsolicited 

text message without providing prior consent, replied to the message with a request to stop or 

block future messages, and subsequently received a confirmation from the original sender, the 

confirmation texts violates the TCPA. Dkt. No. 22, at 14–17. This argument derives from the 

FCC’s holding in In re SoundBite Communications, Inc. Petition for Expedited Declaratory 

Ruling, Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, FCC Declaratory 

Ruling, CG Docket No. 02-278, 27 F.C.C.R. 15391 (Nov. 29, 2012) (“SoundBite”). However, 

plaintiff overstates the impact of the FCC’s holding. In SoundBite, the FCC was asked to clarify 

whether a person’s initial consent to the receipt of text messages also constituted consent to the 

receipt of a confirmation text following the person’s request to opt-out of receiving further 

messages. 27 F.C.C.R. at 15392. The FCC found that the initial consent encompassed consent to 

the confirmation text as well, but expressly stated that its SoundBite holding was limited to the 

specific facts of the case before it. Id. at 15392–94. In short, the FCC confirmed that in the 

particular case where a plaintiff has provided initial consent, a defendant may rely on that initial 

consent as a defense to liability under the TCPA for a confirmation text sent to a plaintiff in 

response to their opt-out request. However, because the FCC’s ruling was limited to that particular 

Case 5:15-cv-00452-RMW Document 28 Filed 06/01/15 Page 9 of 12
15-cv-00452-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

set of circumstances, it does not necessarily follow from the FCC ruling that a confirmation text 

like that alleged in the complaint is actionable where a person is sent unsolicited text messages, 

texts the sender a request to block such messages in the future, and receives a text confirming the 

block request. This is reflected in the cases cited by defendant dismissing claims based on 

confirmation texts like that here.

Plaintiff argues that three of the cases cited by defendant in its motion to dismiss are 

distinguishable, as they involved circumstances where a confirmation text was sent to a person 

who had originally consented to text messages and later elected to opt out—that is, circumstances 

similar to those addressed by the FCC in SoundBite. See Ibey v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 12-

0583, 2012 WL 2401972 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2012); Ryabyshchuck, 2012 WL 5379143; Emanuel 

v. Los Angeles Lakers, Inc., Case No. 12-9936, 2013 WL 1719035 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2013). 

However, in Ibey and Ryabyshchuck, the court did not rely on the plaintiff’s initial consent in 

holding that the TCPA imposes no liability for a single confirmation text. See Ibey, 2012 WL 

2401972, at *3 (“The Court concludes that the TCPA does not impose liability for a single, 

confirmatory text message.”); Ryabyshchuck, 2012 WL 5379143, at *3 (“Such simple, 

confirmatory response to plaintiff-initiated contact can hardly be termed an invasion of plaintiff's 

privacy under the TCPA. A finding to the contrary would stretch an inflexible interpretation 

beyond the realm of reason.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). And while the court

in Emanuel v. Los Angeles Lakers did conclude that by voluntarily providing his mobile number to 

the defendant, plaintiff consented to the receipt of a confirmation text, the court repeatedly

emphasized that the TCPA must be viewed with common sense and in light of the TCPA’s 

animating purpose: prohibiting “intrusive, nuisance telemarketing calls.” 2013 WL 1719035, at *3

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Plaintiff argues that the other cases cited by defendant were wrongly decided, and urges 

the court not to follow their holdings. Dkt. No. 22, at 16–17. For example, plaintiff argues that 

Friedman v. Massage Envy Franchising is factually distinguishable because the confirmation text 

there was sent in response to plaintiff’s two conflicting opt-out messages and sought clarification 

Case 5:15-cv-00452-RMW Document 28 Filed 06/01/15 Page 10 of 12
15-cv-00452-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of plaintiff’s intent. 2013 WL 3026641, at *4. Plaintiff also contends that “Freidman also failed to 

fully implement the provisions of the TCPA, instead making a policy decision to carve out an 

exception which the FCC itself has declined to make.” Dkt. No. 22, at 17. The court is not 

convinced by either argument. The court in Friedman declined to impose TCPA liability where 

plaintiff received a text seeking clarification following his attempt to opt-out, finding that “[o]ne 

message seeking clarification is not a proliferation of intrusive, nuisance calls that the TCPA 

sought to prevent.” 2013 WL 3026641, at *4. While the factual circumstances that gave rise to the 

confirmation text here differ from those in Friedman, the court’s holding in that case was based on 

the notion that a single message sent in response to plaintiff’s text (or texts) is not the kind of 

intrusive, nuisance call that the TCPA prohibits. The court can see no reason to find that the 

confirmation text in this case is any different: whether the responsive text seeks clarification of 

plaintiff’s intentions or simply confirms plaintiff’s decision to opt-out, it does not constitute the 

sort of automated and intrusive telemarketing communications the TCPA was enacted to combat. 

Finally, the fact that the FCC has not explicitly held that confirmation texts are not 

actionable in circumstances beyond those in SoundBite has not prevented numerous courts from so 

holding, and the FCC’s authority to interpret the TCPA does not relieve federal courts from the 

duty to interpret and apply the law. The Ninth Circuit recently emphasized that courts must look to 

the surrounding circumstances in determining whether particular calls “run afoul of the TCPA,” 

and in so doing, courts must “approach the problem with a measure of common sense.” Chesbro v. 

Best Buy Stores, L.P., 705 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Ryabyshchuck, 2012 WL 

5379143, at *3. The application of common sense requires looking to the purposes of the TCPA, 

which the Ninth Circuit has defined as protecting consumers from the “nuisance” and “invasion of 

privacy” that result from “unsolicited, automated” telemarketing calls. Satterfield v. Simon & 

Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Construing the TCPA to prohibit consumer-friendly confirmation texts like that at issue here 

would fly in the face of both common sense and the goals of TCPA.

Ultimately, the court finds that the confirmation text at issue here is not actionable. 

Case 5:15-cv-00452-RMW Document 28 Filed 06/01/15 Page 11 of 12
15-cv-00452-RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s own text precipitated the confirmation text, and by texting AOL requesting to opt-out of 

future messages, plaintiff knowingly released his phone number to AOL and thereby consented to 

be texted back at that number. The court agrees with the holding in Ibey that “the TCPA does not 

impose liability for a single, confirmatory text message.” 2012 WL 2401972, at *3; see also Holt, 

Case No. 11-3046, at 6 (same). Common sense dictates that the TCPA, which seeks to combat

intrusive, nuisance telemarketing calls, should not be construed to punish the consumer-friendly 

practice of confirming requests to block future unwanted texts. The court therefore GRANTS 

defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the confirmation text.

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss the 

complaint. Although amendment may be futile, the court grants plaintiff 20 days leave to amend 

the complaint. Plaintiff must file a first amended complaint no later than June 18, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00452-RMW Document 28 Filed 06/01/15 Page 12 of 12