Opinion ID: 2506087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Circuit Court's Analysis of the TCPA

Text: The plaintiff next argues that the circuit court erred in its determination that the automated call was not a telephone solicitation and did not contain an unsolicited advertisement as those terms are defined by the TCPA. Congress enacted the TCPA to protect the privacy interests of residential telephone subscribers by placing restrictions on unsolicited, automated telephone calls ... and to facilitate interstate commerce by restricting certain uses of facsimile (fax) machines and automatic dialers. S.Rep. No. 102-178, at 1 (1991), 1991 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1968, 1968. The legislation was intended to address the growing number of telephone marketing calls and certain telemarketing practices thought to be an invasion of consumer privacy[.] [2] According to the TCPA, [i]t shall be unlawful for any person within the United States ... to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission [3] under paragraph 2(B)[.] 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). The exemptions in paragraph 2(B) include: (i) calls that are not made for a commercial purpose; and (ii) such classes or categories of calls made for commercial purposes as the Commission determines (I) will not adversely affect the privacy rights that this section is intended to protect; and (II) do not include the transmission of any unsolicited advertisement. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2)(B). With that background in mind, we turn to the circuit court's ruling that the automated call at issue did not contain an unsolicited advertisement. Unsolicited advertisement is defined as follows: 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 or express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(13). The plaintiff argues that the automated message was not an offer to purchase the car, rather it was a solicitation seeking to entice the plaintiff into a marketing scheme intended to generate inspection and car repairs. According to the plaintiffs complaint, the automated message stated tell us about your vehicle and we'll give you an offer[.] The circuit court concluded that when an individual responds to a classified ad, and conveys interest in purchasing the product offered in the classified ad, then such a response does not constitute an unsolicited advertisement[.] The legislative history of the TCPA supports the circuit court's interpretation, and says that, persons who knowingly release their phone numbers have in effect given their invitation or permission to be called at the number which they have given, absent instructions to the contrary. Hovila v. Tween Brands, Inc., 2010 WL 1433417 (W.D.Wash.2010) citing H.R.Rep. No. 102-317, at 13 (1991). The classified advertisement did not contain any limiting instructions on how a third party was to contact the plaintiff's son. By posting the advertisement and telephone number on the internet, the plaintiff's son expressly invited [4] third parties, including the defendants, to make inquiries about the car. We therefore agree with the circuit court's conclusion that the automated call was not an unsolicited advertisement, rather, it was a call made in direct response to an advertisement by the plaintiffs son inviting third parties to respond. The circuit court also concluded that the automated call was not a telephone solicitation. After passage of the TCPA, the FCC adopted regulations providing that no person or entity may initiate an automated call without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is made for a commercial purpose but does not include or introduce an unsolicited advertisement or constitute a telephone solicitation[.] 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2)(iii). Telephone solicitation is defined as: [T]he initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or the investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such term does not include a call or message: (i) To any person with that person's prior express invitation or permission; (ii) To any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship; or (iii) By or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12). The FCC's regulations provide guidance on whether a response to a classified advertisement can be considered a telephone solicitation. In the FCC's final rules and regulations implementing the TCPA, the FCC stated that a call by a real estate agent, representing a potential buyer, to a party who advertised their property for sale, would not constitute a telephone solicitation, so long as the purpose of the call is to discuss a potential sale of the property to the represented buyer. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Act of 1991, 70 FR 19330-01 (2005). The FCC goes on to state that [a] caller responding to a classified ad would not be making a telephone solicitation, provided the purpose of the call was to inquire about or offer to purchase the product or service advertised, rather than to encourage the advertiser to purchase, rent, or invest in property, goods or services. Id. According to these regulations, the defendants' call in response to the classified advertisement was not a telephone solicitation as long as the purpose of the call was to inquire about the used car the plaintiff's son advertised. The plaintiff argues that the purpose of the call was not only to inquire about the car, it was also to entice the plaintiff to participate in a marketing scheme designed to generate fees from automobile inspections and repairs. The plaintiff states that no offer was made during the call, and she (or her son) would have had to follow a series of steps, including getting the car inspected at Pep Boys, before an offer would have been made. [5] The defendants state that the language used in the automated call and the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint demonstrate that the purpose of the call was to inquire about the used car for sale. The automated call stated, I'm calling you about the vehicle you have listed for sale ... we're willing to give you a cash offer right now. Based on this statement and the allegations contained in the plaintiffs complaint, the circuit court determined the telephone call was initiated for the purpose of communicating defendants' interest in extending a bona fide offer to engage in negotiations that might culminate in a bona fide offer for the car plaintiff's son advertised[.] We agree with the circuit court's analysis. This case is analogous to the example provided in the FCC's regulations. In that example, a real estate agent is permitted to call a seller who advertises real estate for sale. An offer would not be expected to be forthcoming during this initial telephone call, rather, the real estate agent would gather information about the property and possibly arrange to have the property inspected. In the present case, the automated call requested more information about the car so that an offer could be made. The FCC regulations do not require a party responding to a classified advertisement to make an offer during the initial call. It would be unusual for a party responding to a classified advertisement for real estate or a used car to make an offer without first conducting an inspection. In the FCC's example, the real estate agent could receive a commission if the sale is consummated. Similarly, the defendants in the present case could have received a fee for inspecting the car. These fees do not change the purpose of the initial call in either the FCC's hypothetical real estate example or in the present case: the purpose was to inquire about the item advertised for sale. We hold that under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., a caller responding to a classified advertisement is not making a telephone solicitation in violation of the Act, provided the purpose of the call is to inquire about or offer to purchase the product or service advertised, rather than to encourage the advertiser to purchase, rent, or invest in property, goods or services. In the present case, we agree with the circuit court that the defendants were not making a telephone solicitation because they were responding to a classified advertisement from the plaintiff's son for the purpose of gathering information about the item he was advertising for sale.