Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00080/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ARcare
Plaintiff
IMS Health Inc
Defendant
Parkin Drug
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HELENA DIVISION

ARCARE, d/b/a PARKIN DRUG, on behalf PLAINTIFF

of itself and all others similarly situated

v. No. 2:16CV00080 JLH

IMS HEALTH, INC. DEFENDANT

OPINION AND ORDER

ARcare brings this action on behalf of itself and others similarly situated for damages and

injunctive relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”). 47 U.S.C.

§ 227(b)(3). With three exceptions, the TCPA prohibits any person from using a telephone facsimile

machine to send an unsolicited advertisement. ARcare alleges that IMS Health, Inc. sent at least six

unsolicited advertisements to ARcare’s ink-and-paper facsimile machine. IMS Health has filed a

motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending that the faxes

it sent to ARcare, which are attached to the complaint, are not “advertisements.” If the faxes are not

“advertisements,” within the meaning of the TCPA, then the complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. The faxes are not “advertisements,” as the law has defined the term for

purposes of the TCPA. Therefore, for the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.

I.

The complaint alleges that ARcare is a non-profit corporation, which owns the Parkin Drug

Store and the Bald Knob Medical Clinic. IMS Health is a Connecticut corporation that provides

global information and technology services that help improve performance and protect patient

privacy. IMS Health owns Healthcare Data Solutions.

IMS Health sent an unsolicited fax to ARcare on May 11, 2015. Document #1 at 11. The

fax features the Healthcare Data Solutions logo and states in part:

Case 2:16-cv-00080-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 8
Healthcare Data Solutions (HDS) works with pharmacies and prescribers to ensure

the confidential exchange and confirmation of patient information. We want to

verify that your fax number is compliant and secure to protect patient’s information

and allow pharmacies to verify prescriber information regarding prescription refill

requests. Thank you for your time.

Id. The fax then asks the recipient to verify the practice’s address, phone number, fax number,

office manager, and website; the identity of the medial professional who provides services at the

practice; and the direct fax number for that medical professional. Id. The fax provides a space for

a signature, where the recipient can affirm that the information provided is true and correct. Id. The

fax also provides a box, where the recipient can check if he has additional information or would

rather receive a phone call from a Healthcare Data Solutions representative. Id. ARcare attached

five other faxes to the complaint. The faxes were sent on March 21, April 19, April 20, May 13, and

June 15, 2015, and vary only by the practice and the professional. Document #1 at 13-17.

II.

To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint

must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the complaint must

set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). The Court accepts as true all of the factual

allegations contained in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving

party. Gorog v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 760 F.3d 787, 792 (8th Cir. 2014). The complaint must contain

2

Case 2:16-cv-00080-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 8
more than labels, conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, which

means that the court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual

allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. Moreover, the Court may consider the

faxes attached to the complaint. Mattes v. ABC Plastics, Inc., 323 F.3d 695, 698 (8th Cir. 2003).

III.

IMS Health maintains that the faxes it sent to ARcare and other entities are not

“advertisements” as that term is defined by applicable law because they do not promote goods or

services that are for sale to the fax recipients; rather, they seek to verify the recipients’ contact

information. Document #11 at 5. ARcare, on the other hand, maintains that the faxes are

advertisements because they promote IMS Health’s pharmacy compliance services. Document #15

at 1. ARcare explains: “Defendant’s faxes do not seek merely to verify [ARcare’s] contact

information. Rather, they are sent to generate business and maximize [IMS Health’s] profit motive. 

Ostensibly, the faxes offer a free service: An evaluation of Plaintiff’s fax number to ensure it

complies with the various regulatory standards.” Id. (citing 21 F.C.C.R. 3787, 3814 (2006)).

The TCPA, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, makes it unlawful for any

person to use a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone

facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement, except under limited circumstances that are not

relevant to IMS Health’s motion to dismiss. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). “The term ‘unsolicited

advertisement’1

 means any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any

1

 The Sixth Circuit addressed the question of law presented to this Court–whether a certain

fax is an “advertisement”–for the first time in Sandusky Wellness Ctr. v. Medco Health Solutions,

788 F.3d 218, 221 (6th Cir. 2015). The court clarified the statutory definition: “We can glean a few

things from [the statutory] definition. For one thing, we know the fax must advertise something. 

Advertising is ‘[t]he action of drawing the public’s attention to something to promote its sale. 

3

Case 2:16-cv-00080-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 Page 3 of 8
property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express

invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5). Congress gave the Federal

Communications Commission authority to make regulations to implement the TCPA. 47 U.S.C. §

227(b)(2). These regulations explain what constitutes an “advertisement” by illustrating the types

of faxes that violate the statute. See In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel.

Consumer Prot. Act of 1991 Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 21 F.C.C.R. 3787, 3810-15 (2006). 

For example, “facsimile messages that promote goods or services even at no cost, such as free

magazine subscriptions, catalogs, or free consultations or seminars, are unsolicited advertisements

under the TCPA’s definition.”2

 Id. at 3814.

In Ameriguard, Inc. v. Univ. of Kansas Med. Ctr., the court held that a fax seeking

participants in a clinical research trial for “prevention of diabetes” was not an “advertisement” and

dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. No. 06-0369-CV-W-ODS, 2006 WL 1766812 at

*1 (W.D. Mo. June 23, 2006) (aff’d Ameriguard, Inc. v. Univ. of Kansas Med. Ctr., 222 Fed. Appx.

530, 531 (8th Cir. 2007)). The fax discussed general information about diabetes; announced the

clinical research trial; provided that qualified participants would receive study-related medical care,

Black’s Law Dictionary 65 (10th ed. 2014) . . . . So material that advertises something promotes it

to the public as for sale. For another thing, we know that what’s advertised–here, the ‘availability

or qualify of any property, goods, or services’–must be commercial in nature. Commercial means

‘of, in, or relating to commerce’; ‘from the point of view of profit: having profit as the primary aim.’ 

Webster’s Third at 456 . . . . So to be an ad, the fax must promote goods or services to be bought or

sole, and it should have profit as an aim.” Id. at 220-21.

2

 There is a circuit split as to the level of Chevron deference courts must afford the FCC’s

regulations implementing the TCPA. See Sandusky, 788 F.3d at 223. Courts disagree as to whether

the statutory definition of “unsolicited advertisement” is ambiguous. Id. ARcare uses the FCC

regulations to bolster its argument. Neither party raises the issue of deference and the regulations

do not support a finding that the Healthcare Data Solutions faxes are advertisements. Therefore, the

Court need not decide the level of deference warranted.

4

Case 2:16-cv-00080-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 Page 4 of 8
study medication, and counseling at no cost; provided that travel would be compensated; and

provided a section for the recipient to provide contact information. Id. The plaintiff argued that

inviting people to obtain information about diabetes prevention qualified as “commercial

availability” of the defendant’s goods. Id. at *2. The court disagreed: “First, the Complaint does

not allege Defendant makes ‘information about diabetes prevention’ commercially available (as

opposed to simply delivering it to people), nor does it allege Defendant sells medication directly to

the public. Second, there is no suggestion that defendant included the call for volunteers as a

smokescreen to mask a true purpose of engaging in the commercial activity of providing or selling

medicine.” Compare id., and Ira Holtzman, C.P.A. v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682, 686 (7th Cir. 2013)

(holding that fax devoting 75 percent of its space to mundane advice and the remainder to a lawyer’s

logo, name, address, and specialties was an advertisement);3

 Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v.

Express Scripts Serv. Co., No. 4:15-CV-664 JAR, 2016 WL 1246884 at *2 (E.D. Mo. March 30,

2016) (holding that a fax describing the availability of the defendant’s goods and services was an

advertisement).

Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true and drawing all inferences in ARcare’s favor,

the Court concludes that the faxes in dispute are non-commercial messages that fall outside that

3

 In Holtzman, the Seventh Circuit based its holding in part on the fact that the “plug for

Turza’s services was not incidental to a message that would have been sent anyway; promotion or

marketing was the reason the faxes were transmitted.” 728 F.3d at 688. Turza’s own lawyer called

the faxes “promotional device[s]” during oral argument. Id. at 687. Likewise, in Paldo Sign,

another case on which ARcare relies, the sender of the fax acknowledged that its purpose was to

direct traffic to a database of industrial real estate listings owned and managed by the sender. Paldo

Sign and Display Co. v. Wagener Equities, Inc., 67 F. Supp. 3d 874, 881 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Here,

IMS Health has not identified promotion of its services as the fax’s purpose and ARcare has failed

to allege facts upon which the Court can reasonably infer the fax was intended to promote the

commercial availability of IMS Health’s services.

5

Case 2:16-cv-00080-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 Page 5 of 8
TCPA’s ban on unsolicited advertisements. Here, the fax is not a direct commercial solicitation and

like in Ameriguard, the plaintiff–ARcare–has failed to allege facts from which the Court reasonably

could infer that the fax it received was either an indirect commercial solicitation or a pretext for a

commercial solicitation. ARcare argues that considering the different components of fax

together–the prominence of the logo, address, and phone number, the description of Healthcare Data

Solutions, and the offer to verify the fax number and practice information–the fax “inform[s] the

recipient that Defendant’s pharmacy compliance services are commercially available.” Document

#15 at 5. But ARcare does not allege, nor does the fax indicate where or how this category of

services is available for purchase by the fax recipient. See, e.g., Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v.

Janssen Pharm., Inc., No. 12-2132 (FLW), 2013 WL 486207 at *4 (D. N.J. Feb. 6, 2013) (“[T]he

inquiry under the TCPA is whether the content of the message is commercial, not what predictions

can be made about future economic benefits.”). ARcare only broadly alleges that “Defendant IMS

Health Inc. is a Connecticut entity that features global information and technology services that help

improve performance and protect patient privacy.”4

 Document #1 at 2, ¶10. And the fax contains

one sentence vaguely describing Healthcare Data Solutions. Document #1 at 11. What, if any,

services are commercially available to ARcare is unclear.

4

 In ARcare’s response in opposition to IMS Health’s motion to dismiss, ARcare asks the

Court to look to IMS Health’s website as corroboration for its assertion that IMS Health intends to

use its faxes to generate market awareness and sales for its pharmacy compliance services. 

Document #15 at 6-7. But in deciding this motion to dismiss, the Court is limited to the complaint

and materials necessarily embraced by the pleadings, such as the faxes ARcare attached to its

complaint. The cases ARcare cites in support of its suggestion involve motions for summary

judgment, materials the plaintiff attached to his complaint, or a court’s decision not to look outside

the fax and the complaint but reconsider the issue at the summary judgment stage. See Document

#15 at 6.

6

Case 2:16-cv-00080-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 Page 6 of 8
It is true that “a fax that does not on its face promote a product or service may nonetheless

violate the TCPA if it is a precursor for a future solicitation.” Drug Reform Coordination Net v.

Grey House Pub. 106 F. Supp. 3d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2013) (holding that a fax that was not an unsolicited

advertisement on its face was nonetheless an advertisement because three direct solicitation e-mails

followed). But ARcare does not allege that IMS Health wanted to verify that the recipients’ fax

numbers as a prelude to later solicitations to purchase its services. See Drug Reform Coordination

Network, Inc. v. Grey House Publ’g, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 3d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2015) (“Standing alone,

the Fax does not promote the Directory for sale. Rather, it apprised Plaintiff of the Directory’s

upcoming edition and offered the opportunity to update Plaintiff’s ‘free listing’ so that its contact

information would be accurate . . . . But a different conclusion obtains when the Fax is read together

with the three direct solicitation e-mails that followed”, which offered the Directory for sale for

$289). Phillips Randolph v. Adler-Weiner Research Chicago, 526 F. Supp. 2d 851 (N.D. Ill. 2007).

ARcare does not even speculate in its complaint that the fax was part of IMS Health’s

operations to market its services, or that the fax would be followed by a commercial solicitation for

the recipient to purchase services from IMS Health. See Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., No. 3:14-cv-405 (SRU), 2015 WL 144728 at *5 (D. Conn. Jan.

12, 2015). And nothing in the fax itself suggests that verifying the recipient’s fax number and

information about the practice was a pretext for pitching a particular service. Ameriguard, 2006 WL

1766812 at *2. “The fact that the sender might gain an ancillary, remote, and hypothetical economic

benefit later on does not convert a noncommercial, information communication into a commercial

solicitation.” Sandusky, 788 F.3d at 225. The message–please verify your contact information and

let Healthcare Data Solutions know if you have additional information or would rather speak with

7

Case 2:16-cv-00080-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 Page 7 of 8
a representative–does not tend to propose a commercial transaction. Therefore, the complaint fails

to state a claim for relief under the TCPA.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Document #10. This action

is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of September, 2016.

__________________________________

J. LEON HOLMES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

Case 2:16-cv-00080-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 Page 8 of 8