Source: http://www.junkfax.org/wiki/Laws_and_cases_about_junk_faxes
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:20:43+00:00

Document:
For starters, you should obtain a copy of Public Law 102-243 (Which includes the TCPA, 47 USC 227), the FCC Regulations at 47 CFR 64.1200, Report and Order 92-443, Memorandum, Opinion and Order 95-310, and Order on Further Reconsideration 97-117. All of these are available directly from the FCC site at www.fcc.gov/ccb/consumer_news/tcpa.html .
The term unsolicited advertisement means any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use a computer or other electronic device to send any message via a telephone facsimile machine unless such person clearly marks, in a margin at the top or bottom of each transmitted page of the message or on the first page of the transmission, the date and time it is sent and an identification of the business, other entity, or individual sending the message and the telephone number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.
Note: fax.com has been notified many times by the FCC so treble damages of $1,500 apply. They have violated both 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(d)(1)(B) because they do not identify the business and telephone number of the business that they are sending the fax on behalf of.
This has a summary of the FCC rulings clarifying the TCPA. This is an excellent resource. It clarifies that "the mere distribution or publication of a telephone facsimile number does not confer invitation or permission to transmit advertisements to a particular telephone facsimile machine" and that the sender of the fax refers to the client of a fax service. If the fax broadcaster wants to add their identification as well, that's fine, but the header must have the business name and telephone number that the broadcaster is sending the fax on behalf of.
This page has a summary of citations sent out by the FCC in the past years. These citations summarize the law as well. Click on any of the citations available in both text format (the default) as well as in Word format (by clicking the link at the top of the page).
Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act prohibits any person from using “a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone :facsimile machine.” 18 An unsolicited advertisement is defined as “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is :transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission.” 19 The Commission has determined, however, that an established business relationship :demonstrates consent to receive telephone facsimile advertisement transmissions. 20 The mere distribution or publication of a telephone facsimile number does not confer invitation or permission to transmit advertisements to a particular telephone facsimile machine.
Accordingly, we conclude that the TCPA prohibits the faxing of unsolicited advertisements either to or from the United States by any entity that is located "within the United :States.
47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), Congress focused on the violator having a presence in the United States such that the state courts would have personal jurisdiction.
This site has lots of great resources, but it's got a flakey webserver and often unreachable.
A 1998 article on why this wouldn't work in federal court. Gives reasons that class certification might be denied. Doesn't apply here in California as pointed out at the end.
A very old article about the TCPA and whether it is enforceable. My how times change. This was written in 1998.
It is OK to send out those "missing kid" faxes since there is commercial benefit. Same with political faxes. But otherwise, you'd better get explicit permission; an established business relationship doesn't do it.
July 22, 2003: In Kaufman v. ACS Systems (July 22, 2003, B155804) _Cal.App.4th, the California Court of Appeals reversed Superior Court Judge Ann L. Kough's ruling that California is an opt-in state. They ruled that: 1) the TCPA applies in California and that enabling legislation is not required, 2) the TCPA is constitutional (already affirmed by the California Supreme Court), and 3) that class actions can be brought in California under the TCPA.
March 21, 2003: The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to overruled Limbaugh so the FCC can now enforce the judgment.
US Dept of Justice amicus brief in support of over turning Limbaugh's ruling.
Missouri decision upholds TCPA constitutionality on Aug 13, 2002 noting that junk faxes are no more protected than graffiti on someone else's property.
Limbaugh's order telling the FCC to pound sand. Of course, a much higher court (the 9th Circuit that governs California where fax.com is located) has ruled the TCPA constitutional.
March 13, 2002: An 8th Circuit District Court (Eastern District of Missouri) judge ruled that the TCPA is unconstitutional. The judge was none other than Rush Limbaugh's uncle, Steven Limbaugh, Sr. (not to be confused with Rush's cousin, Steven N. Limbaugh, Jr., who is the chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court).
Court denies Defendant argument of first amendment infringement, for commercial speech.(Central Hudson), ( Destination ventures ), ( Moser ),( American Blast Fax, (W.D. Tex. 2000 )), ( Kerno ) The Court finds the ruling in ( Nixon v. ABF ) to be contra..
The Court finds that the TCPA covers intrastate and interstate violations..
Award is $500 plus interest, plus all costs. As mandated by Statute. First violation status on advice from Plaintiff.
This appears to be the first comprehensive TCPA ruling in and for the State of Arizona in the Superior Court.
A very well written suit that Covington and Burling filed against fax.com.
Braver's motion for TRO, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction.
Kenneth Kaye's excellent brief that argues for having the court order TCPA violators to stop. Hearing is January 30, 2002 - the judge recused himself on the first hearing. He was PO'ed about prerecorded calls to his cell phone.
A recent Arizona Court of Appeals case that approved a class action junk fax case in Arizona.
I obtained a judgment for $16,000 plus costs against Digital Dynamic, L.L.C., a satellite dish seller & installer in Dallas, Texas, for statutory damages for sending unsolicited faxes. Execution on the judgment was issued about 10 days ago; now I'm ready to go after several other fax advertisers.
Robert Fenerty wins in California.
LA County, Southwest district. Small claims case, appealed to Division A, Judge Ideman presiding.
This is a fun read. Judge Patrick Clifford got it right and trashes Limbaugh's ruling just one month earlier. Opinion dated 5/14/02.
Judge is Steven Limbaugh, Rush's uncle. See citation above for why this ruling is flawed.
Colorado Appeals court denied class certification This recent judgment denied class cert because you can't determine who a class member is without a trial for each person. Obviously, other courts have granted cert (Hooters, Cowboys, etc.).
Second circuit court of appeals ruling affirming state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over private rights of action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. Also discusses opt-in and opt-out.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act/Unsolicited Fax Advertisements: The State of Texas brought suit against American Blastfax under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. ß 227) and the DTPA, seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting Blastfax from sending unsolicited advertisements to fax machines in Texas and damages for each violation of the TCPA and the DTPA. Blastfax filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court denied.
The TCPA prohibited the use of telephone facsimile machines "to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine." 47 U.S.C. ß 227(b)(1)(C). Blastfax initially argued that the TCPA did not apply to intrastate faxes because Congress had the power to regulate only interstate commerce. The court held, however, that Congress can regulate intrastate faxes because telephones and telephone lines are part of an aggregate interstate system and thus were instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Moreover, the TCPA did not limit its application to interstate faxes and the Communications Act exempted the TCPA from its interstate-only restriction. See 47 U.S.C. ß 152(b). Blastfax also argued that the TCPA claims should be dismissed because it complied with state law requirements regarding fax advertisements. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ß 35.47. The court held, however, that compliance with state law did not preclude a violation of the federal law. It also held that a more restrictive state law concerning unsolicited fax advertisements did not preempt the TCPA.
Blastfax next asserted that it could not be liable under the TCPA because it simply broadcasted advertisements for its customers. The TCPA, however, prohibited "any person" from sending unsolicited fax advertisements. Moreover, Blastfax was shown to be more than a mere conduit for third party faxes - it had a data base of recipient fax numbers, solicited advertisers and reviewed the fax advertisements it sent. Thus, the court held that Blastfax was not exempt from the TCPA. The TCPA provides a minimum penalty of $500 for each violation of the TCPA. Blastfax raised a constitutional due process challenge to this penalty, contending it was grossly disproportionate to any harm suffered by the recipient. The court disagreed, finding that the TCPA was designed not only to compensate but to deter the public harm caused by unsolicited fax advertisements, such as interfering with fax machines and shifting the advertiser's printing costs to the recipient. Blastfax sought to dismiss the State's DTPA claim, arguing that the recipients were not consumers under the DTPA. However, the "consumer" requirement did not apply to suits brought by the State.
They sent 125,000 faxes and got off easy as part of a settlement agreement. Mr. Jensen said American Blast Fax -- the Dallas company hired by the Cowboys -- no longer sends fax messages to Texas phone numbers, but continues to operate outside the state. He said he has documentation that American Blast Fax has sent "at least 33 million confirmed fax ads," and added there are at least 400 other companies that profit by sending junk ads.
Richmond County Superior Court Judge Carl C. Brown Jr. assessed full trebled damages of $1,500 per violation against Hooters. It took 6 years before it finally went to the jury in March after a long battle in the courts with various appeals and maneuvering by Hooters. Here's the one page Hooters verdict.
The Sate of Missouri has filed suit against a mass facsimile company alleging violation of the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements to thousands of fax machines owned by residences and businesses. I think this is the case where they brought in stacks of paper to convince a jury of the harm of junk faxes when you look at them in aggregate.
Explains why state court is the venue.
See the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act; A Good Analogy" section and especially the "TCPA Has Been Held Constitutional" section for various citations. They include: Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54, (9th Cir. 1995), and Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1161. See also Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1162 (S.D. Indiana 1997).
Says the FCC believes TCPA preempts all state laws for interstate calls.
Covington sues fax.com for $2.45M (June 18, 2001) Gerard J. Waldron, a partner at Covington & Burling and the original author of the TCPA is suing fax.com $2.45 million for 1,634 unsolicited advertisements received over a one week period at their law firm. This article briefly mentions the other suits.
Silver Spring lawyer Bruce Levitt this week filed (acting as the plantiff) a class-action suit against Fax.com, a California-based “fax blaster,” for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which prohibits the transmission of unsolicited faxes. Levitt took action after receiving three unsolicited ads for vacation deals. He filed the suit in Baltimore City Circuit Court.
Shows intent of Calif law was to be more restrictive than federal law. this section just supplements federal law to add additional provisions for e-mail. Chapter 865, Statutes of 1998, AB 1676 (Bowen), applies to unsolicited commercial e-mail originating in and sent to residents of California (per the Assembly Floor Analysis). The Bowen bill was modeled on the State's existing junk fax law, which allows individuals to opt-out of receiving unsolicited advertising via fax and imposes a $500 fine for each violation (Chapter 564, Statutes of 1992, AB 2438, Katz).
Read the whole thing (it's several pages long).
A copy of the Calif law that's nicer to load since you just get the relevant section.
This is the applicable section and it does nothing to attempt to over-ride federal law and specifically says at the end that any new federal law regulating e-mail spam will invalidate the section.
You can put the senders in jail for 6 months under for misleading advertising.
This is the private attorney general provision. You can get attorney fees and injunctions, but no monetary awards.
NOTE: This law was challenged on the grounds that it violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. Read the ruling in PDF (1MB) or plain text. Read also the prosecuting attorney's clarification of what the ruling means and why it doesn't set precedent.
This is a very comprehensive site on the subject of taping phone conversations.
Federal law 18 U.S.C. § 2522, and 47 U.S.C. §§ 229, 1001-1010) covers the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.
This covers wiretapping (interception of electronic and oral communications); federal wiretap law (18 USC 2511) which says it's ok if one party consents. Note that under 2511(2)(b), the FCC can do wiretaps to enforce chapter 5 of title 47 (which includes the TCPA).
TITLE 18 , PART I , CHAPTER 119 , Sec. 2512. Covers the sale and possession of wiretapping equipment (can only be sold to the government or telecom companies).
Cal Penal Code 631 and 632 California State wiretap law. Section 633 gives power to law enforcement.
This page was last edited on 25 June 2018, at 15:39.

References: § 227
 § 227
 § 227
 v. 
 v. 
 § 227
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2522