# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 24 84

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ro n Go la n; Dori t Go la n, i nd iv id ua ll y an d o n b eh al f of

all ot he rs si m il arl y

si tu at ed

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Veri ta s En te rta in m en t, LLC; Veri ta s M ark et in g Gro up , LLC; Fre eEat s.co m , Inc

., do in g b us in es s as CC Ad ve rti si ng ; AIC Co m m un ic at io ns , LLC, do in g b us in es s as CC Ad ve rti si ng ; Gab rie l S. J os ep h, II I; S te ph en W ay ne Griff in ; M is si on Cit y Man ag em en t, In c.; C ou rag e 2 01 2, LLC; James R. Lein in ge r; S ix Di, In c., do in g b u s i n e s s a s S i x D i ; B o b B r e w e r ; M i c h a e l D al e H uc ka be e, al so know

n as M i k e H u c k a

b e e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 1, 2 01 5
Fil ed : J un e 8 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d B ROOKS, Dis tri ct 1

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

The Hon or ab le Tim ot hy L. Bro ok s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.In Sep te m be r 20 12 Ro n an d Dor it Gol an rece iv ed two un so li ci te d, pr erec or de d

m es sa ge s on th ei r ho m e ph on e li ne

. Each m es sa ge st at ed : "Li be rty. Thi s is a pu bl ic

su rv ey cal l. W e m ay cal l ba ck la te r." The Gol an s fil ed a pu ta ti ve cl as s act io n ag ai ns t

Veri ta s Ent ert ai nm en t, LLC, Veri ta s Mar ketin g G ro up, L L C, Fr eeEats .co m , In c., AIC

Co m m un ic at io ns , LLC, Gab rie l Jo se ph

, St ep he n Grif fin

, Mi ss io n Ci ty Man ag em en t,

In c., Co ur ag e 20 12

, LLC, Ja m es Lein in ge r, Si xDi

, In c., Bo b Brewe r , a n d Mi ke

Huc ka be e (co l l e c t i ve ly, "d efen da nt s" ), al le gi ng th at de fen da nt s in it ia te d th e ph on e
cal ls as pa rt of a te le m ark et in g cam pa ig n to pr om ot e th e fil m Last Oun ce of Co ur ag e,

in vi ol at io n of th e Tele ph on e Co ns um er Pro te ct io n Act, 47 U.S.C. § 22 7, a n d t h e

Mi ss ou ri Do Not Cal l Law, Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 40 7.1 09 8. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d

th e co m pl ai nt wit h pre

jud ic e, co nc lu di ng th at th e Gol an s di d no t hav e st an di ng an d

were in ad eq ua te cl as s rep res en ta ti ve s, an d th ey no w ap pe al

. W e rev ers e an d rem an d.

Last Oun ce of C o u r a g e was in it ia ll y own ed by East ern Gate Fi lm s, LLC.

Dur in g th e pr od uc ti on of th e fil m , East ern Gate as ke d St ep he n Grif fin

, th e pr es id en t

an d ch ie f ex ecu ti ve of

fic er of Veri ta s Ent ert ai nm en t, LLC an d Veri ta s Man ag em en t,
LLC, to "co m e al on gs id e an d fix th e fil m ." Grif fin acce pt ed th e of

fer in ex ch an ge fo r

a 49 pe rcen t own ers hi p in te res t in Last Oun ce of Co ur ag e. Ea s t e rn Gate so ld it s

rem ai ni ng in te res t i n t h e f il m to Ja m es Lein in ge r, th e m an ag er of Mi ss io n Ci ty

Man ag em en t, In c. an d Co u r a g e 2 0 12

, LLC, aft er he in ve st ed $1 0,0 00 ,00 0 in

m ark et in g th e fil m

. Lein in ge r an d Grif fin th en hi red Ga b r i e l Jo se ph

, th e own er of

AIC Co m m un ic at io ns , LLC, to la un ch a te le m ark et in g cam pa ig n to pr om ot e th e fil m

. Usi ng th e "ce le b r i t y vo ic e" of Mi ke Huc ka be e, th ey ag reed to pl ay th e fo ll owi ng

pr erec or de d s cri pt to 4 m il li on res id en ti al ph on e li ne s an d 3 0 m il li on cel l p ho ne s:

Hell o, th is is Gov ern or Mi ke Huc ka be e, wit h a 45 -s eco nd s u r v ey

. Do

y ou be li ev e in Am eri can free do m an d li be rty?

. . . W ou ld y ou , li ke m e,

Mi ke Huc ka be e, li ke to se e Hol lywood res pe ct an d pr om ot e tra di ti on al

Am eri can va lu es ? I am an en th us ia st ic su pp or te r of a ne w m ov ie cal le d

Last Oun ce of Co ur ag e. It is a fil m a b o u t f ai th , f reed om , a nd ta ki ng a

-2

-st an d fo r Am eri can va lu es

. May I te ll y ou m or e ab ou t why I reco m m en d

th at y ou

. . . se e th e m ov ie La s t Oun ce of Co ur ag e? (Pl eas e no te th at

on ly "y es " res po ns es go to [th e n ex t s eg m en t o f th e sc rip t].)

Tha nk y ou fo r y ou r in te res t. Last Oun ce of Co ur ag e op en s in th eat ers

on Fri da y , Sep te mb e r 1 4

, [ 20 12 ]. Last Oun ce of Co ur ag e wil l in sp ire

y ou an d y ou r lo ve d on es to cel eb rat e ou r na ti on an d th e sa cri fic es m ad e

to pr ot ect ou r li be rti es

. It is a gr e a t st or y ab ou t ta ki ng a st an d fo r
rel ig io us free do m

. The fil m is a ti m e l y rem in de r of al l th at is wor th

de fen di ng in ou r na ti on

. Exp eri en ce th e Last Oun ce of Co ur ag e tra il er

an d se e au di en ce reac ti on s at www.las to un cet he m ov ie .co m , th at 's la st

ou nc e th e m ov ie do t co m

. W ou ld y ou li ke to he a r t h i s in fo rm at io n

ag ai n? (Pl eas e no te th at on ly "yes" res po ns es [rep eat th is se gm en t of th e

sc rip t an d] all ot he r res po ns es go to [th e n ex t s eg m en t o f th e sc rip t].)

Tha nk y ou fo r y ou r an swe rs so far. I ha ve jus t [o ne ] m or e qu es ti on [] fo r
de m og rap hi c p ur

po se s. Do y ou own a sm art ph on e?

If a reci pi en t di d no t an swe r th e cal l, th e f ol lo win g m es sa ge wou ld be le ft on th e

an swe rin g m ach in e: "Li be rty. Thi s is a pu bl ic su rv ey cal l. W e m ay cal l ba ck la te r."

Afte r Huc k a b e e r eco rd ed th e sc rip t on Sep te m be r 4, 20 12 , J os ep h hi red Bo b

Brewe r, an of

fic er of th e in fo rm at io n te ch no lo gy co m pa ny Si xDi

, In c., to "re vi ew th e

sc rip t" an d res earc h "t he ci ti es an d st at es whe re th e m os t th eat ers wou ld be sh owi ng

th e m ov ie ." Brewe r ch arg ed AIC Co m m un ic at i o ns fo r th e wor k, bu t th e bi ll s were

pa id by Grif

fin on be ha lf of Veri ta s Ent ert ai nm en t an d Veri ta s Man ag em en t. Grif fin

al so pa id Jo se ph an d AIC Co m m un ic at io ns $2 48 ,50 0 fo r th ei r wor k on th e cam pa ig n.

Alt ho ug h th e Go l a n s were reg is te red on fed eral an d st at e "d o no t cal l" li st s,

Jo se ph an d AIC Co m

m un ic at io ns ob ta in ed th ei r te le ph on e n um be r fro m a da ta ba se

-3

-t h e y ha d pu rch as ed fro m Axi om Co rp or at io n. AIC Co m m un ic at io ns cal le d t h e
Gol an s on Sep te m

be r 10

, 20 12 as pa rt of th e cam pa ig n. The Gol an s di d no t an swe r

th e cal l, so th ey he ard on ly th e au to m at ed m es sa ge : "Li be rty. Thi s is a pu bl ic su rv ey
cal l. W e m ay cal l ba ck la te r." AIC Co m m un ic at io ns cal le d th e Gol an s ag ai n on Sep te m be r 12

, 20 12 an d reco rd ed th e sa m e m es sa ge

. Last Oun ce of Co ur ag e op en ed

na ti o n wid e two da y s la te r. App ro xi m at el y 1,4 00 ci ne m as pl ay ed th e fil m th at da y

in cl ud in g th e W eh ren be rg Ch es te rfi el d Gala xy 14 The at er, lo cat ed ne ar th e ho m e of

th e Gol an s in Ch es te rfi el d, Mi ss ou ri. In to ta l, AIC Co m m un ic at io ns cal le d 4 m il li on

res id en ti al ph on e li ne s, an d o ve r 1 m il li on li ve res po ns es were de te ct ed , su bjec ti ng

th os e rec ip ie nt s t o t he m ajor it y of th e pr erec or de d sc rip t. The rem ai ni ng reci pi en ts

who di d no t an swe r th e cal l, li ke th e Gol an s, he ard on ly th e br ie f m es sa ge reco rd in g.

T he G ola ns su ed Veri ta s Ent ert ai nm en t an d Veri ta s Ma rk et ing in Mi sso ur i sta

te

co ur t on Octo be r 3, 20 12

, al le gi ng vi ol at io ns of th e Tele ph on e Co ns um er Pro te ct io n Act, 47 U.S.C. § 22 7( b) (1 )(B)

, an d 4 7 C .F.R. § 6 4.1 20 0( a). Afte r in it ia l di sc ov ery,

th ey fil ed an am en de d cl as s act io n co m pl ai nt

, ad di ng Jo se ph

, AIC Co m m un ic at io ns , Free eat s.co m , In c., Grif

fin

, Mi ss io n C it y , Co ur ag e 20 12

, Lein in ge r, Si xDi

, Brewe r,

an d Huc ka be e as de fen da nt s to th e act io n. The Gol an s th en m ov ed to cert ify a cl as s

of "p ers on s in th e Uni te d S ta te s t o who m [d efen da nt s] wit hi n fou r y ears of Octo be r 3, 20 12

, in it ia te d on e or m or e te le ph on e cal ls to su ch pe rs on s' resi de nt ia l tel ep ho ne

li ne s us in g th e reco rd ed vo ic e of Mi ke Huc ka be e to de li ve r a m es sa ge as pa rt of th e
ab ov e-m en ti on ed cam

pa ig n reg ard in g th e m ovi e L as t O unc e of Co ur age," in vi ol at io n

of § 22 7( b) (1 )(B) of th e Tele ph o n e C o n s u m er Pro te ct io n Act. The y al so so ug ht to

rep res en t a su bc la ss of Mi ss ou ri res id en ts who were re gi st ered on Mi ss ou ri "d o no t

cal l" li st s an d rece iv ed m or e th an on e te le ph on e so li c i t a t i on by or on be ha lf of

de fen da nt s, in vi ol at io n of th e Mi ss ou ri Do Not Cal l Law, Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 40 7.1 09 8.

Defen da n t s r e mo v ed th e cas e to fed eral di st ric t co ur t on Ja nu ary 16

, 20 14

. W hi le Grif

fin

, Veri ta s Ent ert ai nm en t, Veri ta s M a r k e ti ng , Jo se ph

, AIC

Co m m un ic at io ns , an d Free eat s.co m , In c., an swe red th e am en de d cl a s s a c ti on

-4

-co m

pl ai nt

, Mi ss io n Ci ty, Co ur ag e 20 12

, Lein in ge r, an d Huc ka be e m ov ed to di sm is s

it on th e gr ou nd th at th ey co ul d no t be he ld vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r th e cal ls

. The

Gol an s m ov ed to fil e a se co nd am en de d cl as s act io n c om pl ai nt an d to st ay fu rth er
br ie fin g on cl as s c e r t i f

i c a ti on

. In res po ns e to th e m ot io ns , th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d

"i ss ue s of co ns id erab le co nc ern th at warra nt [ed ] ho ld in g an y ru li ng in ab e ya n c e,

pe nd in g ad di ti on al br ie fin g by th e pa rti es ." On it s own acco rd

, th e co ur t qu es ti on ed

"wh et he r [th e Gol an s ha d] su ffer ed an y in jury su ffi ci en t to gi ve th e m s t a n d i ng to

br in g th is cas e in fed eral co ur t an d whe th er th ey [were ] pr op er cl as s rep res en ta ti ve s."

A f t e r t h e pa rti es br ie fed th os e is su es , th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e
Gol an s ha d no t su f

fere d an in

jury in fact be cau se no ne of th e m es sa ge s th ey ha d

rece iv ed "co nt ai ne d an ad ve rti se m en t, te le m ark et in g mes s ag e, or te le ph on e

so li ci ta ti on ," in vi ol at io n of th e Tele ph on e Co ns um er Pro te ct io n Act (TCPA) or th e

Mi ss ou ri Do Not Cal l Law. The di st ric t co ur t al so c on cl ud ed th at th e Gol an s were

in ad eq ua te cl as s rep res en ta ti ve s be cau se th ey co ul d no t sh ow th at th ei r cl ai m s were typic al of pu ta ti ve cl as s m em be rs un de r Fed eral Ru le o f Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 23 (a).

Unl ik e m os t pu ta ti ve cl as s m em be rs who ha d he ard th e fu ll sc rip t of th e cal l, th e co ur t

reas on ed th at th e Gol an s were su bjec t to a "u ni qu e de fen se " be cau se th ey ha d he ard

on ly th e br ie f m es sa ge reco rd in g on th ei r an swe rin g m ach in e. It th us di sm is se d th e

cas e wit ho ut ad dr es si ng whe th er M i s s i on Ci ty, Co ur ag e 20 12

, Lein in ge r, or

Huc ka be e co ul d be hel d vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r th e cal ls

, an d th e Gol an s no w ap pe al

.

The Gol an s fir st arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in c o n cl ud in g th at th ey

la ck ed st an di ng to pu rs ue th ei r TCPA cl ai m s be cau se th ey ha d no t su ffer ed an in jury

in fact

. W e rev ie w t h e d i st ric t co ur t's st an di ng de te rm in at io n de no vo

. Pl y m ou th

2

Cn ty., Io wa v. Mer sc or

p, In c., 77 4 F.3 d 11 55

, 11 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )

. A r t i c l e III

Beca us e th e Gol an s waiv ed arg um en t rel at ed to th ei r Mi ss ou ri Do Not Cal l 2

Law cl ai m s by fai li ng to m en ti on th os e cl ai m s in th ei r br ie fs

, we li m it ou r rev ie w to th e di sm is sa l of th e TCPA cl ai m s. Fai r v. Nor ris

, 48 0 F.3 d 86 5, 86 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ).

-5

-st an di ng req ui res a pl ai nt iff to "d em on st rat e th e n o w

- f am il ia r el em en ts of in

jury in

fact

, c a u sa ti on , an d red res sa bi li ty." Lan ce v. Co ffm an , 54 9 U.S. 43 7, 43 9 (2 00 7)

. Alt ho ug h Co ng res s m ay no t co nv ert a ge ne ral iz ed gr ie va nc e in to an "i nd iv id ua l rig ht

vi nd ic ab le in th e co ur ts ," Lujan v. Defen de rs of W il dl ife

, 50 4 U.S. 55 5, 57 7 (1 99 2)

, it "m ay crea te a st at ut or y rig ht or en ti tl em en t th e al le ge d de p r i v a t i o n of whi ch can

co nf er st an di ng to su e ev en whe re th e pl ai nt iff wou ld ha ve su ffer ed no jud ic ia ll y

co gn iz ab le in

jury in th e ab se nc e o f th e st at ut e," Warth v. Se ld in , 42 2 U.S. 49 0, 51 4
(1 97 5)

. In

jury in fact m ay th us be sh own "s ol el y by th e in va si on of a le ga l rig ht th at

Co ng res s cr eat ed ." Ham m er v. Sam 's East

, In c., 75 4 F.3d 49 2, 49 8 (8t h Cir. 2 01 4)

.

W it h few ex cep ti on s, th e TCPA pr oh ib it s th e in it ia ti on of "an y te le ph on e cal l

to an y res id en ti al te le ph on e li ne us in g an art ifi ci al or pr erec or de d vo ic e to de li ve r a

mess ag e wit ho ut th e pr io r co ns en t of th e cal le d pa rty." 47 U.S.C. § 22 7( b) (1 )(B)

. Co ng res s crea te d a pr iv at e rig ht of act io n fo r en fo rcem en t of vi ol at io ns of th e st at ut e,

pe rm it ti ng reco ve ry fo r "ac tu al m on et ary lo ss fro m su ch a v i o l a t i o n , [o r] $5 00 in

da m ag es fo r each su ch vi ol at io n, whi ch ev er is gr eat er." Id

. § 22 7( b) (3 )(B)

. Si nc e th e

TCPA crea te s a st at ut or y cau se of act io n, we m us t co ns id er whe th er th e Gol an s ha ve

al le ge d an in

jury un de r it su ffi ci en t to co nf er st an di ng

. See Ham

m er, 75 4 F.3 d at 49 9.

Co ng res s en act ed th e TCPA to pr ot e c t c on su m ers fro m th e "p ro li fera ti on of

in tru si ve [te le m ark et in g] cal ls to th ei r ho m es ." Mi m s v. Arro w Fi n. Serv s., LLC, 13 2

S. Ct

. 74 0, 74 5 (2 01 2)

. Alt ho ug h m os t st a t es ha d en act ed le gi sl at io n res tri ct in g

te le m ark et in g, m em

be rs of Co ng res s be li ev ed th at fed eral la w was ne ces sa ry be cau se

te le m ark et ers co ul d ev ad e st at e la w th ro ug h in te rs ta te op erat io ns

. See id

. The TCPA

th us pr oh ib it s "an y pe rs on wit hi n th e Uni te d St at es , or an y pe rs on ou ts id e th e Uni te d

St at es if th e reci pi en t is wit hi n th e Uni te d St at es ," fro m us in g pr erec or de d m es sa ge s

to cal l res id en ti al ph on e li ne s wit h o u t p r i or co ns en t, "u nl es s th e cal l is in it ia te d fo r

em erg en c y p u r p o s es or is ex em pt ed by ru le or or de r by th e Co m m is si on un de r

pa rag rap h 2( B)." 47 U.S.C. § 22 7( b) (1 )(B)

. Para gr ap h 2( B) pr ov id es th at th e Fed eral

Co m m un ic at io ns Co m

m is si on (FCC ) m ay ex em pt no nc om m erci al cal ls

, s e e i d. §

-6

-2 2 7 ( b ) ( 2) (B)( i), an d co m m erci al cal ls if th ey do no t "ad ve rs el y affe ct th e pr iv a c y rig ht s th at th is se ct io n is in te nd ed to pr ot ect [an d] do no t in cl ud e th e tra ns m is si on of

an y un so li ci te d ad ve rti se m en t," se e id

. § 22 7( b) (2 )( B ) ( i i ) (I)– (II). The FCC ha s

su bs eq ue nt ly ex em

pt ed fro m reg ul at io n an y a r t ifi ci al or pr erec or de d cal l whi ch is

"m ad e fo r a co m

m erci al pu rp os e bu t do es no t in cl ud e or in tro du ce an ad ve rti se m en t

or co ns ti tu te te le m ark et in g." 47 C.F.R. § 64 .12 00 (a)( 3) (ii i); acco rd In re Rul es an d
Reg ul at io ns Im

pl em en ti ng th e Tele ph on e Co n s u m er Pro te ct io n Act of 19 91

, 18

F.C.C. Rcd

. 14 01 4, 14 10 1 ¶ 14 5, 20 03 W L 21 51 78 53

, at *5 1 (F.C.C. Ju ly 3, 20 03 ).

The m es sa ge s at iss ue he re sta te d, "Lib ert y

. Thi s is a pu bl ic su rv ey cal l. W e

m ay cal l ba ck la te r." Eve n if th e cal ls were m ad e fo r a c om m erci al pu rp os e,
de fen da nt s co nt en d th at th ey di d n o t v i ol at e th e TCPA be cau se ne it he r m es sa ge

co nt ai ne d an "ad ve rti se m en t" or qu al ifi ed as "t el em ark et in g" un de r th e im pl em en ti ng

reg ul at i on s. "Ad ve rti se m en ts " in cl ud e "m at eri al ad ve rti si ng th e co m m erci al

av ai la bi li ty or qu al it y of an y pr op ert y , go od s, or se rv ic es ." 47 C.F.R. § 64 .12 00 (f)(1 ).

Bec au se th e m es sa ge s di d no t m en ti on pr op ert y , go od s, or se rv ic es , we ag ree th at th ey

were no t ad ve rti se m en ts pr oh ib it ed by th e TCPA or it s im pl em en ti ng reg ul at io ns

. Id

.

W hi le th e co nt en t of th e cal ls co nt ro ll ed whe th er th ey were "ad ve rti se m en ts ,"

th ei r pu rp os e co n tro ll ed whe th er th ey were "t el em ark et in g." The im pl em en ti ng

reg ul at io ns de fin e "t el em ark et in g" as th e "i ni ti at io n of a te le ph on e cal l or m es sa ge fo r

th e pu rp os e of en co ur ag in g th e pu rch as e o r r e n t a l of

, or in ve st m en t in

, pr op ert y ,
go od s, or se rv ic es , whi ch is tra ns m it te d to an y pe rs on ." 47 C.F.R. § 64 .12 00 (f)(1 2)

. A "p ers on or en ti ty 'in it ia te s' a te le ph on e cal l whe n it ta ke s th e st ep s ne ces sa ry to ph y si cal ly pl ace [th e] cal l." In th e Mat te r of th e Jo in t Pet it io n fil ed by Dis h Netwo rk

, LLC, 28 F.C.C. Rcd 65 74

, 65 83 ¶ 26

, 20 13 W L 19 34 34 9, at *8 (F.C.C. May 9, 20 13 ).

Not wit hs ta nd in g th e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e reg ul at io ns , d efen da nt s arg ue th at

we sh ou ld co ns id er on ly t h e c o n t e n t of th e cal ls in de te rm in in g whe th er th ey were

"t el em ark et in g." See, e.g ., All e man v. Yell owb oo k, In c., No. 12 -CV-1 30 0- DRH-

-7

-PMF

, 20 13 W L 47 82 21 7, at *6 (S.D. Ill

. Sep t. 6, 20 13 ). W e refu se to do so

. Neit he r

th e TCPA no r it s im

pl eme n t i n g r e gu la ti on s "re qu ire an ex pl ic it m en ti on of a go od

,
pr od uc t, or se rv ic e" whe re th e im pl ic at io n of an im

pr op er pu rp os e is "cl ear fro m th e

co nt ex t." Ch es br o v. Bes t Bu y St or es , L.P., 70 5 F.3 d 91 3, 91 8 (9 th Ci r. 20 12 ).

Co ng res si on al fin di ng s in di cat e th at co ns um e r s co ns id er "p rere co rd ed cal ls

,
reg ard le ss of th e co nt en t [o f th e] m es sa ge , to be a nu is an ce an d an in va si on of

pr iv acy." See TCPA of 19 91 , P ub . L. No. 10 2– 24 3, 10 5 St at . 2 39 4, § 2 (1 0) . Ev en
whe n th e in te nd ed co nt en t of a m es sa ge is no t co nv ey ed

, th e in tru si on in to th e ho m e

an d t he "s ei zu re" of t he ph on e li ne is th e sa m e. Id . § 2 (5 ).

Sen at or Hol li ng s, th e sp on so r of th e TCPA, ha s ex pl ai ne d th at "co m pu te riz ed

cal ls are th e sc ou rg e of m od ern ci vi l i z a t i o n

. " M i m s, 13 2 S. Ct

. at 75 2 (ci ti ng 13 7

Co ng

. Re c

. 3 0 8 2 1

– 3 08 22 (1 99 1) ). The y wak e us up in th e m or ni ng , in te rru pt ou r
di nn er a t n i g ht

, fo rce th e si ck ou t of be d, an d "h ou nd us un ti l we wan t to rip th e

te le ph on e rig ht ou t of th e wall ." Id

. Giv en th es e fin di ng s an d th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of

th e reg ul at io ns , we co nc lu de th at co nt en t m ay be in st ru ct iv e, bu t it is no t di sp os it iv e.
Cf. So li s v. Su m

m i t C o n tra ct or s, In c., 55 8 F.3 d 81 5, 82 3– 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ).

"Tel em ark et in g" oc cu rs whe n th e co nt ex t of a cal l in di cat es th at it was in it ia te d an d

tra ns m it te d to a pe rs on fo r th e pu rp os e of pr om ot in g pr op ert y , go od s, or se rv ic es

. See

47 C.F.R. § 64 .12 00 (a)( 2) (ii i); 47 C.F.R. § 64 .12 00 (f)(1 2) ; s ee als o In re Ru le s an d
Reg ul at io ns Im

pl em en ti ng th e Tele ph on e Co ns um er Pro te ct io n Act of 19 9 1

, 18

F.C.C. Rc d a t 1 40 98 ¶ 14 1, 2 00 3 WL 21 51 78 53 , at * 49

.

Here, th e co nt ex t of th e cal ls in di cat es th at th ey were in it ia te d fo r th e pu rp os e

of pr om ot in g Last Oun ce of Co ur ag e. The Gol an s al le ge d th at Lein in ge r an d Grif fin

hi red Jo se ph of AIC Co m m un ic at io ns to pr om ot e t h e f i l m as pa rt of a na ti on wid e

"t el em ark et in g cam

pa ig n." Alt ho ug h th e cam pa ig n ap pe are d to su rv ey whe th er

re c i pi en ts ha d "t rad it io na l Am eri can va lu es ," Grif fin an d Jo se ph were "m or e

co nc ern ed wit h ge tt in g vi ewers t o se e Last Oun ce of Co ur ag e th an ga th eri ng

in fo rm at io n ab ou t th em ." AIC Co m m un ic at io ns th us cal le d th e Gol an s an d 4 m il li on

-8

-ot he r ph on e li ne s by us in g a pr erec or de d sc rip t th at pr om ot ed th e f i l m as a "t im el y

rem in de r of al l th at is wor th de fen di ng in ou r na ti on " an d "a gr eat st or y ab ou t ta ki ng

a st an d fo r rel ig io us free do m ." The sc rip t ex pl ai ne d whe re reci pi en ts co ul d watc h th e

tra il er an d whe n th e fil m wou ld op en

. Si nc e th e cal ls were in it ia te d an d tra ns m it te d

to th e Gol an s in or de r to pr om ot e Last Oun ce of Co ur ag e, th ey qu al ifi e d a s

"t el em ark et in g" ev en th ou gh th e m es sa ge s ne ve r refe ren ced th e fil m

. See 47 C.F.R.
§ 64 .12 00 (a)( 2) (ii i); 47 C.F.R. § 64 .12 00 (f)(1 2)

. The di st ric t co ur t th eref or e erre d in

co nc lu di ng th at th e cal ls were ex em pt fro m reg ul at io n an d th at th e Gol an s ha d fai le d

to al le ge an in

jury in fact su ffi ci en t to co nf er Arti cl e III st an di ng

. See Ham m er, 75 4

F.3 d at 49 9; cf. W al la ce v. Co nAg ra Fo od s, In c., 74 7 F.3 d 10 25

, 10 33 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ).

The Gol an s ne xt arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in co nc lu di ng th at th ey were

in ad eq ua te cl as s rep res en ta ti ve s be cau se th ey co ul d no t sh ow th at th ei r TCPA cl ai m s

were typic al of pu ta ti ve cl as s m em be rs un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 23 (a).

A tri al co ur t m

us t "ev al ua te care fu ll y th e le gi ti m acy of th e na m ed pl ai nt iff 's pl ea th at

he is a pr op er cl as s rep res en ta ti ve un de r Ru le 23 (a)." Gen eral Tel. Co

. v. Fal co n, 45 7

U.S. 14 7, 16 0 (1 98 2)

. The typic al it y an d ad eq ua cy cri te ria se rv e as "g ui de po st s" fo r
de te rm in in g whe th er "m ai nt en an ce of a cl as s act io n is eco n o mi c a l an d whe th er th e

na m ed pl ai nt iff

's cl ai m an d th e cl as s cl ai m s are so in te rrel at ed th at th e in te res ts of th e

c l a ss m em

be rs wil l be fai rly an d ad eq ua te ly pr ot ect ed in th ei r ab se nc e." Am ch e m

Pro ds

., In c. v. W in ds or , 52 1 U.S. 59 1, 62 6 n.2 0 (1 99 7)

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's

ru l i n gs on th es e is su es fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n, rev ers in g on ly if th e co ur t

co m m it te d an erro r of la w or res t e d i t s c o nc lu si on s on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact ua l

de te rm in at io ns

. See, e.g ., Bl ad es v. Mo ns an to Co

., 40 0 F.3 d 56 2, 56 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ).

Rel y in g on it s co nc lu si on th at th e Gol an s la ck ed st an di ng to pu rs ue th ei r TCPA

cl ai m s, t he di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t t he y were i na de qu at e cl as s re pr es en ta ti ve s.

It is well es ta bl is he d th at a pl ai nt iff who la ck s st an di ng to as se rt hi s cl ai m s can no t be

a pr op er cl as s rep res en ta ti ve un de r Ru le 23 (a). See Hall v. Lh a c o, In c., 14 0 F.3 d

11 90

, 11 96 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ); Great Ri ve rs Co -o p. of S.E. Io wa v

. F a r m la nd In du s.,

-9

-In c., 12 0 F.3d 89 3, 89 9 (8t h Cir. 19 97 ). Tha t is no t t he si tu at io n her e, ho wev er, for

th e Gol an s ha ve al le ge d an in jury un de r th e TCPA, se e 47 U.S.C. § 22 7( b) (1 )(B)

, al on g wit h th e rem ai ni ng el em en ts of cau sa ti on an d red res sa bi li ty, se e id

. § 22 7( b) (3 ).

Cf. Verv aeck e v

. Ch il es , Heid er & Co

., In c., 57 8 F .2d 71 3, 7 19 –2 0 (8 th Cir . 19 78 ).

The di st ric t co ur t al so co nc lu de d t h a t th e Gol an s were in ad eq ua te cl as s

rep res en ta ti ve s be cau se th ey su ffer ed a di ffer en t in jury th an cl as s m em

be rs who ha d

he ard th e fu ll sc rip t of th e pr erec or de d m es sa ge

. Cl as s rep res en ta ti ve s "m us t be pa rt

of th e cl as s an d po ss es s th e sa m e in te res t an d su ffer t h e s a me i n ju ry as th e cl as s

m em be rs ." Alp ern v. Uti li Co rp Uni te d, In c., 84 F.3 d 15 25

, 15 39 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). A

cl as s rep res en ta ti ve is "n ot ad eq ua te or typic al if it is su bjec t to a un iq ue de fen se th at

th reat en s to pl ay a m ajor ro le in th e li ti ga ti on ." In re Mi lk Pro ds

. Ant it ru st Lit ig

., 19 5

F.3 d 43 0, 43 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). Bec au se th e pu rp os e of th e cal ls is th e cri ti cal is su e

in th is cas e, se e 47 C.F.R. § 64 .12 00 (f)(1 2)

, th e Gol an s were no t su bjec t to a un iq ue
de fen se

. Nor di d th ey su ffer a di ffer en t in jury th an cl as s memb e r s w h o he ard th e

en ti re m es sa ge

. W ha t mat t e r s fo r al l cl as s m em be rs , in cl ud in g th e Gol an s, is th at

each cal l was in it ia te d fo r th e p ur po se of p ro m ot in g Las t Ou nc e of Co ur ag e. Cf. In

re Mi lk Pro ds

. Ant it ru st Lit ig

., 19 5 F.3 d at 43 7. The di st ric t co ur t th eref or e erre d as

a m at te r of la w in co nc lu di ng th at th e Gol an s were in ad eq ua te cl as s rep res en ta ti ve s.

Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ru le on whe th er Mi ss io n Ci ty, Co ur ag e

20 12

, Lein in ge r, or Huc ka be e co ul d be h el d vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r th e cal ls

, de fen da nt s arg ue fo r affi rm an ce on th is al te rn at iv e gr ou nd

. As a ge ne ral ru le

, fed eral

ap pe ll at e co ur ts "d o no t de ci de is su es th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad jud ic at e." E.g.,

Dais y Mfg

. Co

., In c. v. N CR Co rp ., 29 F.3 d 38 9, 39 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). W e th us
de cl in e to pa ss on th is is su e an d rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t to co ns id er whe th er th os e
de fen da nt s can be he ld vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r th e cal ls

. See, e.g ., Brad en v. W al -Ma rt

St or es , Inc ., 58 8 F .3d 58 5, 6 03 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

-1 0-Fo r th es e reas on s, we rev ers e th e jud gm en t an d rem an d th e cas e to th e di st ric t

co ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-