N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DAVID R OB ER TS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. PAYPAL, INC . , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16304 D.C . No. 4:12-c v-00622-PJH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Phy l lis J. Ha

m ilton, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 20, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, C LIFTON, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. David R obe rts a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e n t in favor of Pa

y Pa l, Inc ., on R obe rts’ c la im unde r the Te le p hone C o nsum e r Prote c tion Ac t. Afte r a dding his c e llula r te le phone num

be r to his Pa

y Pa l a c c ount, R obe rts re c e ive d a

te xt m e ssa g e from Pay Pa l tha t he c o nte nds viola

te d the TC PA’ s 

# FIL ED OCT 29 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.re stric tion on c a lls using a n a utom atic te l e phone dia ling sy ste m or an a rtific ia l or pre re c orde d voic e a

bse nt “prior e xpre ss c onse n t.” Se e 47 U.S.C . § 227(b)(1)(A). The distric t c ourt gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e nt in Pa

y Pa l’ s favor on the ba sis tha t R obe rts ha d e xpre ssly

c onse nte d to re c e ive te x t m e s sa g e s from Pay Pa l by knowingly

providing Pa

y Pa l his c e ll phonenum

be r. W e a ffirm . The Fe de ra l C om

m unic a tions C om

m ission, in e xe rc ise of its a uthority to pre s c ribe re gula

tions to im

ple m e nt the TC PA, se e 47 U.S.C . § 227(b)(2), de te rm i ne d in a

1992 R e port a

nd Orde r that

“ pe rsons who knowingly re le a se the ir phone num

be rs ha ve in e ffe c t give n the ir invita tion or pe rm ission to be

c a lle d at the n um be r whic h the y

have give n, a

bse nt instruc tions to the

c ontra ry .” In the Matte r of Rule s & Re gulations Imple

me nting the

Te l. C o nsume r Prot. Ac t

of 1991 , 7 F.C .C . R c d. 8752, 8769 (Oc t. 16, 1992). The FC C ’ s inte rpre tat i on of “prior e xpre s s c onse nt” m ay not be c ha lle nge d in the c onte xt of this a

ppe a l. Se e Pac . Be ll Te l. C o . v . C al. Pub. Utils. C

omm’n , 621 F.3d 836, 843 (9th C ir. 2010). TheHobbs Ac t ve sts the c ourts of a ppe a ls with e xc lusive jurisdic tion to “ e njoin, se t a side , suspe nd (in wholeor in pa rt), or to de te rm i ne the va lidity

of” FC C orde rs in a c tions na m ing the Unite d State s a s a pa rty . 28 U.S.C . § 2342; se e U.S. W . C ommc ’ns v . MFS Inte le ne t, Inc . , 193 F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th C ir. 1999). B e c a use this suit wa s not brought pursua nt to the 2Hobbs Ac t, the FC C ’ s 1992 interpre t ation of “ prior e xpre ss c onse nt” m

ust be pre s um e d va lid. Se e U.S. W . C ommc ’ns, Inc . v . J

e nnings, 304 F.3d 950, 958 n.2 (9th C ir. 2002). Unde r the FC C ’ s inte rpre tation, R obe rts e xpre ssly c o nse nte d to te xt m e ssa ge s from

Pay Pa l whe n he provide d Pay Pa l his c e ll phonenum be r. Eve n if R obe rts be lie ve d tha

t Pa y Pa l would only

c onta c t him

on his c e ll phonea

bout proble m s with his online

tra nsa c tions, tha

t lim ita t ion did not a

pply to Pa y Pa l’ s use of his num

be r be c a use he fa ile d

to c om m unic ate it to Pa

y Pa l. R obe rts’ c onte ntion tha

t the FC C ’ s 1992 interpre tation limits the c onse nt e xpre s se d by

re le a se of a

phone num

be r to “ norm a l busine s s c om m unic ations” or

“ norm a l , e xpe c te d or de s ire d c o m m unic ations,” is without me rit. The FC C ’ s c ita tion to a House R e p ort m e ntioning “ norm a l busine ss c om

m unic ations” wa s not m e ant a s a

lim ita tion on its inte

rpre tat ion of “prior e xpre ss c onse nt,” but m e re ly a s

“ support[] ” for tha

t inte rpre tat ion. Se e In the Matte r of Rule s & Re gulations , 7 F.C .C . R c d. at 8769 n.57. M ore ove r, the re l e va nt sta tutory te xt doe s not c onta in any la ngua g e re ga

rding “ norm a l busine ss c om m unic ations” or “ norm a l , e xpe c te d or de sire d c om

m unic a tions.” Eve n if this c o urt we re to a c c e pt R o be rts’ argum e nt, it is unc l e ar how the te xt m e ssa ge at issue c ould be anything othe r tha n a norm a l busine ss c om

m unic a tion. 3Although the FC C ha s c h ange d its a pproa c h to “p rior e xpre ss c onse nt” in re c e nt y e ars, se e

, e .g. , In theMatte r of Rule s & Re gulations Imple

me nting the

Te l . C onsume r Prot. Ac t of 1991 , 27 F.C .C . R c d. 1830, 1838 (Fe b . 15, 2012), those c ha nge s oc c urre d subse que n t to thete xt m e ssa ge at issue in this c a s e and do not a pply re troa c tive ly . AFFIRM E D.

4