Source: https://jbho.blog/north-america/united-states/tcpa/complaints/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:21:43+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff claimed he never consented to receive the text.
jbho: TCPA settlement is a small price to pay to get your guy on the Supreme Court?
The constitutionality / first amendment argument is likely to resurface.
Kohl’s Allegedly Automatically Opted Consumers Into Text Message Programs.
Class complaint – Plaintiff claimed she texted “SAVE” to a Kohl’s short code for a 15% off coupon. She claimed she did not expect, and did not consent, to be enrolled in a recurring text message program.
jbho: looks like the flow in the complaint may not have followed the double opt-in model.
Surprising, since previous cases (e.g., Winner v. Kohl’s), it appeared Kohl’s did use a double opt-in.
Class complaint – Quicken allegedly made unsolicited robocalls to plaintiff’s residential number, a number on the National Do Not Call (DNC) List. Plaintiff claimed he was never a customer of Quicken, and never provided Quicken his number.
Plaintiff stated he did provide his number as part of an HDTV sweepstakes, but specifically did not check tied to a Quicken consent.
Plaintiff further claimed he informed Quicken not to contact him in relation to past HDTV sweepstakes.
jbho: a reminder the TCPA does apply to landline calls.
Class complaint – Marijuana delivery service Eaze allegedly sent unsolicited (ATDS) texts to plaintiff’s mobile. Plaintiff claimed the texts came from multiple numbers, and provided no opt-out mechanism.
jbho: This one could be an open and shut case. According to the complaint, Eaze responded to consumer complaints by saying they were CAN-SPAM complaint.
Can you hear the facepalm?
And Eaze’s own T&Cs said they use autodialers.
Ultimately, a reminder that you need to know the laws before you engage in any marketing campaigns.
Plaintiff alleged the texts were designed to look like they were sent by a human, but were in fact automated texts sent en masse. The use of a long-code phone number, and personal salutation belied the automated nature if the texts.
jbho: interesting. I have seen other cases were the courts are predisposed to consider texts from a short code as automatically ATDS texts. Will the technology behind the long code be treated differently?
Class complaint – Fashion Footware allegedly sent some 140 unsolicited (ATDS) texts to plaintiff’s mobile, a number on the National Do Not Call list. Plaintiff claimed he never requested information from, and had no business relationship with, Fashion Footware. Plaintiff further claimed texts continued despite his stop replies.
jbho: the complaint says “(p)lainitff repeatedly replied to Defendant’s text messages with the word ‘stop.’” Not sure if this means he replied “STOP” or tried to use phrases with the word stop included. Nonetheless, a reminder that your systems need to identify a multitude of opt-out words, anywhere in a given response.
Class complaint – Ace allegedly made “automated telemarketing calls” to plaintiff’s mobile, a number registered on the national Do Not Call list. Plaintiff used the number called for both personal and business purposes. Plaintiff claimed that although he initially consented to the telemarketing calls, he later orally revoked his consent on inbound calls to him. Plaintiff also claimed one agent instructed him to call another number to opt-out, instructions which he followed, but calls still continued.
jbho: When someone says stop calling, STOP CALLING! And a reminder that the TCPA covers B2B calls to mobile phones.
Ultimately, the fact the number was on the National DNC is irrelevant, since plaintiff admitted he initially consented to the calls. For the sake of argument, it appears defendant may have relied on the fact the number was tied to a business as a reason not to scrub against the National DNC (business numbers can’t be registered). However, the DNC does allow combo numbers to be registered if the primary use is personal.
Interestingly, the complaint also claims Ace was not registered in Illinois as a telemarketer at the time the calls were made. Ultimately moot, as no state law claims were filed. But AFAIK, Illinois doesn’t require sellers or telemarketers to obtain a license or register with the state. Has anyone heard differently?
Class complaint – iHeartMedia allegedly made an unsolicited prerecorded message call to plaintiff’s mobile. Plaintiff claimed he texted a local (iHeartMedia owned) radio station to enter a contest, but never consented to receive robocalls inviting him to participate in contests run by other iHeartMedia outlets.
jbho: the complaint does not describe any CTA or disclosures provided when plaintiff texted the original radio station. Could be an interesting test of whether an inbound text constitutes a “knowing disclosure” of a phone number. Of course, if the calls are deemed marketing, then Prior Express Written Consent would have been required.
Class complaint – Off Lease Only (OLO) allegedly sent unsolicited (ATDS) text messages to plaintiff’s mobile. Plaintiff claimed he had no prior relationship with OLO, and texts continued despite requests they stop.
jbho: looks like there could be some gamesmanship here. The texts in the complaint appear to be the first half of double opt-in.
Additionally, per the complaint, plaintiffs stop requests were made to live agents via telephone and email. The complaint does not mention any contact after the STOP reply above.
Class complaint – Chipotle allegedly send at least five unsolicited (ATDS) texts to plaintiff’s mobile, a number on the National Do Not Call list. Plaintiff claimed he never provided his express written consent to be contacted with the marketing (ATDS) texts.
jbho: hmmm. Something seems off about this one. Perhaps a reassigned number. Or maybe an attempt to test whether Chipotle’s sign-up flow constitutes consent for a single text or actually evidences Prior Express Written Consent. Plaintiff does not claim he never provided his number, he only claims he never provided consent.
Class complaint – Seterus allegedly made autodialed debt collection calls to plaintiff’s mobile. The calls were allegedly directed to plaintiff’s daughter. Plaintiff claimed calls continued despite informing Seterus it had reached a wrong number, and her requests the calls cease. Plaintiff claimed she never did business with Seterus, and alleged it must have been obtained her number through skip-tracing.
jbho: a reminder that consent is phone number specific, and not necessarily household based. Unless the daughter was the primary account holder on a family plan that included the mother’s phone, Seterus could face an uphill battle.
UPDATE: 11May2018 – dismissed (Doc#16). The case was voluntarily dismissed without explanation.
Marriott Vacation Club allegedly made unsolicited autodialed telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile number, a number on the National Do Not Call registry. Plaintiff claimed calls continued despite requests they cease – amounting to more than one unsolicited call in a twelve month period.
UPDATE: 13Feb2018 – voluntary dismissal (Doc#9). The parties reached an undisclosed settlement.
jbho: same old story: get consent, and when someone says stop calling, STOP CALLING!
Class complaint – Checkers, through its agent, allegedly sent unsolicited (ATDS) telemarketing texts to plaintiff’s mobile. Plaintiff claimed texting “Coupons” to Checkers did not constitute the prior written express consent needed for a recurring text message program. Plaintiff also alleged some texts did not include an opt-out mechanism.
Class complaint – Welk, and its agents, allegedly made unsolicited autodialed telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile, a number on the national Do Not Call list. Plaintiff claimed he was not a customer of defendants, never provided his number to defendants, expressed no interest in their timeshare properties, and never consented to the calls. Plaintiff also alleged defendants failed to provide him copies of their Do Not Call policies (as required under 47 CFR §64.1200(c)(2)(i)(A)).
jbho: surprisingly, the complaint does not include claims for Do Not Call violations.
Plaintiff alleges he received another 9 texts, despite additional stop requests, including contacting Deccan directly. Plaintiff claimed he received another 3 texts, texts that originated from a different phone number.
Plaintiff seeks to represent two classes: a ‘No Consent’ class, and a ‘Stop Call’ class.
jbho: At first blush, I thought this would serve as another reminder that you need to recognize opt-out terms (STOP, END, CANCEL, UNSUBSCRIBE, QUIT, etc.) anywhere in a text reply.
However, based on a screenshot in the complaint, it looks like straight-up STOP replies may not have been recognized either.
Class complaint – Lyft allegedly sent unsolicited (ATDS) texts to plaintiff’s mobile, a number on the National Do Not Call registry. Plaintiff claimed the texts relating to Lyft services constituted marketing, and she never provided her Prior Express Written Consent for such texts. Plaintiff claimed the texts did not include opt-out instructions as require by CTIA/MMA guidelines.
jbho: hmmm. Seems like a suit born of the one-call safer harbor rule. Nowhere in the 31 page complaint does it say plaintiff ever texted STOP. Not even in the screenshots attached to the complaint.
Finally, plaintiff claimed when he texted ‘STOP,’ he received a text asking why he was not interested.
jbho: make sure to offer a simple opt-out honor opt-out requests. MMA/CTIA guidelines are a good starting point.
Looks like a strong argument that no PEWC is being obtained. HOWEVER, plaintiff claimed he never engaged that process, so not sure it’s relevant. Doesn’t seem he would be adequate to represent any ‘sign-up’ class?
Recall Notice Is Text Spam?
Class complaint – Lokey allegedly sent an unsolicited (ATDS) text to plaintiff’s mobile. The text alerted plaintiff of a recall on her car, a recall initially issued in 2007, that was not covered under her warranty. Plaintiff claimed she had no business relationship with Lokey, and never provided Lokey her number. Plaintiff claimed since the text related to repairs she would have to pay for, the text was unsolicited marketing.
jbho: I’ve not seen any rulings on whether recall notices constitute an ’emergency’ under the TCPA. The closest I’ve seen to a definition of ’emergency’ came in the FCC Blackboard ruling where the Commission indicated messages related to weather closures, fire, dangerous persons, & health risks (e.g., toxic spills) constituted ’emergencies’ exempt from consent – at least for schools.
Although, based on the screenshot included in the complaint, it appears to be a live interaction, with an obfuscated opt-out request. What do you think?
Another reason to make sure you can identify ‘STOP’ anywhere in text replies.
Class complaint – Spanish Broadcasting allegedly sent unsolicited texts to plaintiff’s mobile, a number on the National Do Not Call list. Plaintiff claimed he had no business relationship with Spanish Broadcasting, and never request its services.
jbho: intersting that the complaint seems to focus more on DNC violations than ATDS texts. Although, the class is defined broadly enough to include both. A reminder that plaintiffs can double-dip for violations of §227(b) & §227(c).
Note plaintiff is represented by the same firm as in Naiman v. Zoek below, which also focused on DNC violations.
Class complaint – Zoek allegedly made unsolicited autodialed telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile number, a number that was on the National Do Not Call registry. Plaintiff claimed calls continued despite requests they cease – amounting to more than one unsolicited call in a twelve month period. Plaintiff seeks to represent an ATDS class and a DNC class.
jbho: yet another reminder that plaintiffs can double-dip for violations of §227(b) & §227(c).
Note plaintiff is represented by the same firm as in Bugbee v. Spanish Broadcasting above, which focused on DNC violations (rather than Robocall violations).
Class complaint – Century Link allegedly made autodialed and prerecorded telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile. Plaintiff claimed calls continued despite requests they cease. Plaintiff claimed he had no business relationship with Century Link, and never consented to the calls.
Class complaint – Rooms To Go allegedly made unsolicited telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s landline, a number on the national Do Not Call registry, and calls continued despite asking they stop. Plaintiff claimed he had no business relationship with Rooms To Go, and never consented to the calls.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of consumers registered on the national DNC registry who received more than one unsolicited telemarketing call in a 12 month period.
UPDATE: 22Jan2018 – joint stipulation of dismissal (Doc#10). The parties reached an undisclosed settlement.
jbho: interesting to see a case that pleads violations of 47 USC §227(c) only. A reminder that the TCPA does cover landline calls and manual dialed calls.
The complaint also goes into detail as why the alleged injuries are concrete. Plaintiff cites the recent decision in Susinno v. Work Out World [3rd. Circ 16-3277(Orig: D N.J.; 3-15-cv-05881)] https://jbho.blog/north-america/united-states/tcpa/#Susinno-v-Work-Out-World where the court found one call is sufficient to cause concrete injury.
Class complaint – A Place For Mom allegedly made autodialed lead generation calls to plaintiff’s mobile. Plaintiff claimed that although he knowingly provided his mobile number on the A Place For Mom website, A Place For Mom failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose he would be called. Autodialer disclosures were nowhere near the phone number entry field, and located at the bottom of the page, in a “barely legible font.” Thus, Plaintiff claimed he did not provide his Prior Express Written Consent to be contacted.
jbho: although the disclosure arguably could meet the requirements of 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(8), plaintiff seeks to build his case on whether the disclosure was ‘clear and conspicuous.’ What do you think?
Class complaint – Gigats allegedly sent unsolicited (ATDS) texts to plaintiffs’ mobiles. The texts allegedly advertised employment opportunities, and were sent from at least four different phone numbers. Plaintiff Hilton claimed she had no previous relationship with the sender, and her number was on the national DNC list. Plaintiff Metzger claimed he had no previous relationship with the sender, and texts continued despite replying STOP.
jbho: this complaint covers all the bases. No Consent, failure to honor opt-outs, and DNC claims (47 USC §227(c)).
Class complaint – Cash Fund allegedly made unsolicited, autodialed telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile, a number on the National Do Not Call list. Plaintiff alleged calls were made from at least three different numbers.
jbho: a reminder of the importance of data quality.
Note: The complaint does not state whether plaintiff ever downloaded the Uber app or otherwise interacted with Uber.
Class complaint – Marriott allegedly made at least one prerecorded telemarketing call to plaintiff’s mobile. Plaintiff claimed she never consented to “any kind of marketing calls” from Marriott.
Class complaint – Charter allegedly made an unsolicited, autodialed, prerecorded, telemarketing call to plaintiff’s mobile. Plaintiff claimed he was never a Charter customer, and never provided his number to Charter for any purpose.
Class complaint – UPS, through its agent, allegedly made autodialed debt collection calls to plaintiff’s mobile, and continued calling despite her requests calls cease. Plaintiff claims she provided her personal number on a business account she subsequently closed, a business account that was wrongly referred to collections. Plaintiff claimed any consent that may have existed was effectively revoked when she requested calls cease.
jbho: I wonder if UPS thought it was reaching a business line? A reminder to scrub lists for mobile numbers, since the TCPA does cover B2B calls if they are made to a mobile.
Class complaint – GC Services allegedly made some 39 autodialed and prerecorded message calls to plaintiff’s mobile. Plaintiff claimed she never provider her number to GC, or otherwise consented to the calls. Plaintiff further alleged that although calls were made from Houston, Texas, the inbound calls displayed a (local) San Diego number.
jbho: there is no private right of action for violations of the Truth in Caller ID Act (TCIA), but it’s usually tacked on to regulatory enforcements to round out complaints. Probably being used in an attempt to demonstrate willfulness here.
Number spoofing isn’t in-and-of-itself a TCIA violation, and ‘nonharmful spoofing’ – spoofing done without “intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value” has generally been permitted. However, you better have a legitimate business case for making such changes.
BTW: in you are interested, CallerID spoofing services are the subject of a pending petition before the FCC, on whether companies that ‘aid and abet’ TCPA violations through Caller ID spoofing should be vicariously liable for such calls. AFAIK, a ruling hasn’t yet been handed down.
Class complaint – Fleet allegedly made autodialed telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile, encouraging her to refinance her vehicle. Plaintiff claimed she never expressed interest in refinancing her vehicle, and never provided any written authorization to Fleet for the calls.
jbho: best to skip the cold calls and first get consent?
Class complaint – Sears allegedly made unsolicited autodialed telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile. Plaintiff claimed he had no relationship, nor any previous contact, with Sears. Plaintiff further alleged calls continued despite verbal and email requests the calls cease.
UPDATE: 5Dec2017 – order granting joint stipulation for dismissal (Doc#36). The parties reached an undisclosed settlement.
jbho: Remember, the TCPA applies to B2B calls as well.
Another complaint that includes arguments for why plaintiff has standing under Spokeo, with two pages of the complaint dedicated to that premise.
Both were allegedly sent from the same Short Code.
Both were allegedly sent from a spoofed 10-digit number (plaintiff claimed when he dialed the number, it was out of service).
Plaintiffs claimed they never consented to the texts, and their numbers were acquired through unauthorized access to third parties’ phone contact lists.
jbho: another case that will test who is the caller in a forward-to-a-friend scenario. Ultimately, it will boil down to the extent of user interaction in the sending. Remember Poshmark was recently granted summary judgement [Reichman-v-Poshmark (S.D. CA; 3:16-cv-02359)] for an app that required multiple clicks before invites could be sent.
Class complaint – Business Texter allegedly sent unsolicited (ATDS) texts to plaintiff’s mobile. The texts were allegedly designed to mimic manual, human sent texts, but were actually initiated by an Artificial Intelligence SMS Chat Bot. Plaintiff claimed he never provided his number to Business Texter, a number he believes Business Texter ‘scraped’ from Zillow.
Class complaints – Defendants allegedly sent unsolicited (ATDS) marketing texts to plaintiffs’ mobiles. Each allegedly sent the texts through forward-to-a-friend features in their mobile apps that would ask users to share the app, and then execute address book blasts. Plaintiffs alleged app users had no control over the content or timing of the texts, and were never shown samples of the texts sent.
jbho: plaintiffs may face uphill battles here. Based on the complaint, both apps appears to mirror processes for which Poshmark was recently granted summary judgement [Reichman-v-Poshmark (S.D. CA; 3:16-cv-02359)]. Will the 7th & 11th follow suit?
For complaints filed almost two thousand kilometers apart by two separate firms, there are a lot of similarities in the filings. Interesting.
Class complaint – Cardis allegedly made autodialed, prerecorded debt collection calls to plaintiff’s mobile, and allegedly continued calling despite plaintiff’s requests calls cease. Calls were allegedly made 2-3 times per day, 3-5 times per week. Plaintiff claims she was never a customer of Cardis. Claims were filed under the TCPA and FDCPA.
jbho: could be a wrong number case, otherwise plaintiff would likely have filed claims under the FCCPA as well?
Class complaint – AT&T allegedly made autodialed, prerecorded message calls to plaintiff’s mobile without consent, and allegedly continued calling despite his request calls cease. The nature of the calls was not disclosed in the complaint.
jbho: note the complaint specifically calls out the “Aspect Unified IP dialing system” as an ATDS. One to add to the ‘is’ / ‘is not’ / ‘not yet’ an ATDS list?
Class complaint – Flagship allegedly made autodialed, prerecorded message calls to plaintiff’s mobile, and allegedly continued calling despite being informed it had reached a wrong number.
jbho: Once more, when someone says stop calling, STOP CALLING! And in addition to opt-outs, you might want to scrub your call lists against reassigned numbers as well.
Class complaint – National Grid allegedly made autodialed, prerecorded message calls to plaintiff’s mobile. Calls allegedly continued despite informing National Grid it had reached a wrong number, and asking that calls cease. Plaintiff claimed he was not a National Grid customer and never gave National Grid his number.
jbho: When someone says stop calling, STOP CALLING! And in addition to opt-outs, you might want to scrub your call lists against reassigned numbers as well.
Flash Advance allegedly made an unsolicited autodialed, prerecorded telemarketing call to plaintiff’s mobile, a number on the national Do Not Call list. Plaintiff claimed he was not a Flash customer, and never provided Flash his number.
jbho: despite the initial call being unsolicited, plaintiff did ask to be called back (ostensibly to confirm the callers identify). Wonder if that will have any bearing going forward.
Also worth noting – the complaint contains a detailed analysis of why plaintiff believes he has standing (under Spokeo) for the one call.
Finally, surprisingly, no cause of action was included under 47 USC 227(c).
Class complaints – defendants allegedly made unsolicited robocalls to plaintiff’s mobile, a number on the national Do Not Call list.
• Gallup allegedly made at least one ATDS call.
• Marriott allegedly made some eight prerecorded message calls. Plaintiff claimed the automated-interactive opt-out was inaccessible or did not work.
jbho: although the circumstances of the calls differ, the rest of the complaints are pretty much the same. Both were filed on 17 April 2017 by the same law firms.
Surprisingly, no cause of action was included under 47 USC 227(c). Maybe they forgot to add to the Marriott complaint when copying from the Gallup complaint?
Class complaint – Macy’s allegedly made some 50 autodialed debt collection calls to plaintiff’s mobile; calls that concerned and alleged debt owed by her daughter. Calls allegedly continued despite informing Macy’s it had reached a wrong number and asking that calls cease.
jbho: there may be some extenuating circumstances here, but once you’re informed of a wrong number or asked to stop calling, you really should pull that number from the dialer.
Since the calls weren’t to the debtor, it appears no FCCPA claims were filed.
Class complaint – Emily allegedly sent unsolicited faxes advertising its medical supply products, with opt-out notices that did not comply with statutory requirements.
jbho: I was almost ready to stop writing up fax cases, and then bam! Another class action. Shocking.
Class complaint – Pisa, on behalf of its partners, allegedly made unsolicited autodialed telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile. Calls allegedly continued despite requests they cease. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that received similar calls from Pisa seeking subscribers to the more than 100 newspapers it represented. Calls were allegedly made to consumers who did not consent and had no pre-existing business relationship.
jbho: maybe better to skip the cold calling and get consent?
Or, for newspapers in the internet age, since nobody reads paper copies anymore, maybe your marketing dollars could be better spent on programmatic campaigns?
Interestingly, there were no DNC claims (47USC§227(c)) in the complaint.
Class complaint – Sprint allegedly sent unsolicited faxes, without opt-out notices, to Gorss properties. The faxes advertised free devices and preferred mobile plan rates for Wyndham affiliates.
jbho: compare with the Land’s End complaint (see below). It appears the faxes here were also directed to Wyhdham. If they were, and Wydham had consented, an opt-out notice would not have been required.
A reminder that in addition to opt-outs & reassigned numbers, you might want to scrub your call lists against directories of TCPA plaintiffs.
No End To Faxes In Sight?
Class complaint – iRemedy allegedly sent unsolicited faxes marketing it medical products and services. The faxes allegedly were sent without consent, where no previous relationship existed, and failed to include compliant opt-out notices.
jbho: wow – 2017, and there seems to be no end to these fax cases.
• I’ve changed my mind and don’t want to receive these anymore.
• Please do not send any further messages.
• I don’t want these messages anymore. This is your last warning!
Kohl’s stated opt-out instructions were also included in Kohl’s short form and long form text program notices.
Hearings on the motion are set for 1May2017.
UPDATE: 27Nov2017 – dismissed with prejudice (Doc#21) in an unpublished opinion, the court found plaintiff’s long winded opt-out requests, which explicitly avoided Kohl’s provided commands, were unreasonable.
The motion to dismiss (Doc #8) contains examples of materials used by Kohl’s to promote and manage its text message programs. Looks pretty buttoned up to me. I’d say these are good examples to keep handy – especially if Kohl’s can prevail on its motion.
Class complaint – FRS, and its partner MNS, allegedly sent an unsolicited (ATDS) text jointly promoting a high-speed ferry service from Miami to nightlife events in the Bahamas.
jbho: in joint marketing campaigns, make sure the responsibility for getting consent is assigned, as well as keeping those records secured.
Also – wow, a 19 page complaint for a single text.
Class complaint – BMO allegedly made unsolicited autodialed calls selling aftermarket third party auto warranties to plaintiff’s mobile, a number on the national Do Not Call list. Plaintiff claimed he had no relationship with BMO and never consented to the calls.
jbho: surprisingly no claims were filed under §227(c). Perhaps plaintiff only received the one call mentioned in the complaint?
Class complaints – Gap and JC Penney, in two separate actions, allegedly made autodialed, prerecorded debt collection calls to plaintiff’s mobile about another person’s debt. Calls allegedly continued despite informing Gap and JC Penney they had reached a wrong number.
jbho: for fun, print out these complaints, overlay the pages and hold them in front of a bright light.
jbho: it seems pretty clear plaintiff here was gaming EA. Nonetheless, a reminder you should consider building some intelligence into your opt-out processing to recognize such unconventional opt-out requests – at least until the FCC or Congress build some structure around revocation.
Wrong Number Text Spam Class Action?
Hey, this is Grubhub! [RESTAURANT NAME] is Making your order right now. If we had to guess how soon you’ll be eating, we would guess pretty soon!
Plaintiff claims texts continued despite responding “STOP” and “STOPALL”.
jbho: This is a tricky one. Ostensibly, you could consider each unique GrubHub order an individual consent to the corresponding notification. But if there is a wrong number in the system, all bets are off.
Also, this one sounds similar to the scenario in Duguid v. Facebook (N.D. CA; 3:15-cv-00985) which was recently dismissed with prejudiced for failure to allege an ATDS was used. However, the complaint here goes to pains to provide snippets of computer code to allege that the GrubHub system could be easily modified if “capacity” were not already present. One to watch.
Avis: Reply ”YES” to receive text alerts for your rental. 4 msg per rental. Text STOP to end, HELP for help + T&C’s. Std. Msg&Data rates may apply.
UPDATE: 19Oct2017 – plaintiff reached an ‘amicable,’ but undisclosed settlement with Avis (Doc#20). Also of interest, plaintiff survived an earlier motion to compel arbitration (Doc#14) when the court found AVIS could not demonstrate plaintiff used his AVIS rewards account (an account with binding arbitration provisions) when providing his number.
jbho: might a ‘look forward’ analysis be needed here to determine if the ‘program’ consisted of marketing or informational texts? If all the texts are relationship/transactional, there’s likely a good argument plaintiff consented by knowingly providing his number (assuming the Cunningham/Moskowitz petition doesn’t change anything).
Plaintiff claimed he was not an AT&T customer, had no relationship with AT&T, and did not speak spanish.
Class complaint – Rady allegedly made autodialed, prerecorded debt collection calls to plaintiffs’ mobiles. Calls apparently ceased after Rady was informed of attorney representation and receiving written cease requests, but allegedly resumed months or weeks later.
jbho: if the later calls we’re manually dialed, that shouldn’t be a TCPA violation, but could potentially be FDCPA or Rosethal Act violations. Here it appears only TCPA claims (the most lucrative) were filed.
Complaint – Synergetic allegedly made some 50 autodialed, prerecorded debt collection calls to plaintiff’s mobile about another person’s debt. Calls allegedly continued despite informing Synergetic it has reached a wrong number. Calls allegedly were made several times a day on back to back days. Plaintiff alleges violations of the TCPA, FDCPA, and FCCPA.
jbho: The trifecta of cash claims. No mention of a class at this point. Although if it’s a wrong number, I don’t think the FCCPA is applicable.
Class complaint – Capital One allegedly made autodailed, prerecorded message calls to plaintiff’s mobile. Calls allegedly continued despite informing Capital One it had reached a wrong number. Plaintiff claimed he recently acquired the number, was never a customer of Captial One, never gave his number to Capital One, and never consented to the calls.
jbho: we really need industry to provide a mechanism to scrub reassigned numbers.
Can Debt Calls Rely On Proxy Consent?
Class complaint – CFHR, and its agent, allegedly made some 220 autodailed and prerecorded debt collection calls to plaintiff’s mobile phones, despite plaintiff’s request calls cease. Plaintiff claimed he did not provide his numbers to CFRH as he was incapacitated at the time of his admission, and claims .
jbho: it will be interesting to see who provided the number(s). In the famous Mais v. Gulf Coast Collections [11th Circ.; 13-14008 (Orig: S.D. FL; 0:11-cv-61936)], the appellate court ruled a wife listing a husband’s mobile on a hospital admissions form constituted the husband’s prior express consent.
Class complaint – AIG allegedly made unsolicited autodialed telemarketing calls to plaintiff’ mobile, a number on the National Do Not Call list. AIG allegedly called several times per day, and continued calling despite requests to stop. Plaintiff claimed the calls were meant for someone else, and she never had a relationship with AIG.
jbho: maybe they can get another bailout?
Class complaint – Sprint allegedly made autodialed, prerecorded telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile, a number on the National Do Not Call list.
jbho: the complaint does not specify whether plaintiff was a Sprint customer or called at Sprint provisioned number. It does allege the calls were meant to solicit new customers, and plaintiff was charged for the calls. So it will be interesting to see if any carrier consent exemptions apply.
Class complaint – Charter and its agents allegedly made unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s landline & mobile phones. Calls allegedly continued despite informing callers, orally & via email, to cease. Plaintiff claimed callers failed to provide him with their internal Do No Call policy on demand, and some calls occurred prior to 8:00am.
jbho: well written, comprehensive complaint (if you like that sort of thing). Worth a look to know what to expect when you’re robocalling.
Class complaint – Honda allegedly made autodialed, prerecorded debt collection calls to plaintiff’s mobile about a debt allegedly owed by her father. Plaintiff claims her number was not listed on the loan application, and calls continued (to her and her father) despite requests they cease.
jbho: it will be interesting to see how this plays out. If the daughter’s line was on a family plan in the father’s name, would that constitute consent?
Surprisingly, there were no FDCPA or Rosenthal Act claims in the complaint.
Class Complaint – Infogroup allegedly made unsolicited autodialed marketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile, a number which was on the National Do Not Call list.
Class complaint – Lands End allegedly sent unsolicited faxes, with insufficient opt-out notices, to Gorss properties. The faxes advertised Wyndham hotels branded clothing.
jbho: yet another reminder that faxes are covered under the TCPA.
Class complaint – Adelphia allegedly sent unsolicited faxes, with insufficient opt-out notices.
Whether a malformed opt-out notice is more than a “bare procedural violation” is yet to be seen.
Class complaint – Nieman Marcus allegedly sent unsolicited (ATDS) marketing texts to plaintiffs mobile. Texts were received through plaintiff’s WeChat application, and she claims she never provided consent to receive the marketing texts.
UPDATE – 6Mar2017 – plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims (Doc #9), so I guess we won’t get to see how this one would have played out.
Complaint – Banfield allegedly made autodialed and prerecorded calls about his Optimum Wellness Plan. Plaintiff stated he had cancelled the plan several months before, and calls continued despite asking them to stop. Plaintiff claims he then informed Banfield in writing to cease calls, yet they still continued.
jbho: When someone says stop calling, STOP CALLING!
Class complaint – Festiva, through its agents, allegedly made unsolicited autodialed telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile, a number that was on the national Do Not Call list.
Class complaint – Fairway allegedly continued to send marketing (ATDS) texts to plaintiff despite being ‘notified’ by plaintiff to stop. Two additional marketing texts were sent almost simultaneously with an opt-out confirmation text.
jbho: it looks like the extra texts came within the five minute grace period established in the FCC’s Soundbite ruling, but came AFTER the confirmatory opt-out text. It will be interesting to see how this one goes.
Class complaint – Office Depot allegedly continued to send marketing (ATDS) texts to plaintiff despite being ‘notified’ by plaintiff to stop.
jbho: this one sounds like we might have a TCPA troll, where plaintiff signs up for a text program and opts-out hoping to get more texts. Unlike the complaint above (Moskowitz v. Fairway), the complaint here does not specify whether plaintiff actually replied STOP, and there are no exhibits attached to show how Office Depot was ‘notified.’ Nonetheless, there is currently no ‘bad faith’ exception under the TCPA, so irrespective of plaintiff’s motives, you probably have to monitor multiple channels for SMS opt-outs.
Complaint – Montgomery Ward allegedly made autodialed and prerecorded debt collection calls to plaintiff’s mobile (up to three times per day), and continued to call after she requested calls stop. Plaintiff alleges she received 100 calls after revoking consent (and informing Montgomery Ward she was already making payments).
Class Complaint – EHT allegedly sent unsolicited faxes promoting its Curexa pharmacies, faxes that failed to include the statutorily required opt-out notice. Plaintiffs claim they had no previous relationship with EHT.
jbho: a reminder that the TCPA covers faxes too.
Class complaint – Lyft allegedly sent unsolicited (ATDS) texts encouraging plaintiff to download the Lyft mobile app. Plaintiff claimed he was not a Lyft customer, and never provided Prior Express Written Consent to receive the texts.
Class complaint – Harley Davidson allegedly made unsolicited autodialed telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile, a number that was on the national Do Not Call list. Calls allegedly continued despite requests to stop.
jbho: yet another example of how plaintiffs can double dip for violations of §227(b) & §227(c).
Class complaint – Verizon allegedly made unsolicited telemarketing calls to plaintiff’s mobile without consent, to a number on the National Do Not Call list. Complaint specifies two classes: an ATDS Class and a DNC Class.
jbho: another example of how plaintiffs can double dip for violations of §227(b) & §227(c).
Also, although there is a carve out for calls made by carriers where consumers are not charged, i’m not sure if that only applies to autodialed or prerecorded calls under §227(b).
Plaintiffs allege the texts fell outside the scope of any consent related to provision of the T-Mobile wireless service, they never provided PEWC for the marketing texts, and never downloaded the T-Mobile Tuesdays mobile app.
jbho: similar to the above, it will be interesting to see if the above mentioned carrier exemption can apply to texts promoting a partner service.
Plaintiffs allege they never consented to the texts, and while they were T-Mobile customers, that relationship had nothing to do with Subway.
jbho: might be a good idea to make reassigned numbers scrubs part of any ongoing/subscription text message programs.
This is a tricky one. It appears Buy Buy Baby has a good consent model. They are getting hit on the technicality of texting a reassigned number. The complaint makes no mention of whether plaintiff ever replied STOP (simply to entrap the sender?).
Class complaint – Hyundai allegedly made autodialed calls to plaintiff’s mobile without consent. Plaintiff claims the calls were intended for someone else, he did not own a Hyundai, and never gave Hyundai his mobile number. Hyundai continued calling despite plaintiff’s request they stop.
jbho: another example of the importance of good data hygiene.
The complaint doesn’t specify the types of calls, just that they were made to a wrong number. But since plaintiff seeks to represent a class that includes “non-debtors” the calls were likely debt collection.
Complaint – Conn’s allegedly made unsolicited autodialed calls to plaintiff’s mobile, and continued to call despite requests to stop. The complaint does not specify the purpose of the calls.
jbho: on thing is universal – always get consent!
Class Complaint – Universal, through its agent Twilio, allegedly sent unsolicited (ATDS) MMS texts encouraging the purchase of tickets to see the movie “Warcraft.” Plaintiff claims her never provided his mobile number to Universal, and never otherwise consented to receive the texts.
jbho: MMS can implicate data rate charges, so may support harm claims?

References: v. 
 §64
 §227
 §227
 v. 
 §227
 §227
 v. 
 §227
 v. 
 §227
 §227
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §227
 §227
 §227
 §227
 §227