Opinion ID: 852099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Threshold Issue and First Amendment Claim

Text: At the outset, we must determine which claims are properly presented on appeal. The State and FreeEats each filed a motion for preliminary injunction against the other, and the trial court denied each motion in part. FreeEats did not appeal the trial court's refusal to enjoin the State from enforcing the Autodialer Law's consent provisionwhose language requires FreeEats to obtain consent from the subscriber before delivering prerecorded messages using an automated dialing device. The State, on the other hand, did appeal the trial court's decision to prohibit it from enforcing the Autodialer Law's live-operator provisionwhose language would require FreeEats to use live operators if FreeEats chose to obtain consent at the outset of the robocalls. Thus, the sole Autodialer Law provision at issue is the live-operator requirement. The trial court evaluated the Autodialer Law's live-operator requirement only under Article 1, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution. As stated above, the trial court never reached any of FreeEats's federal constitutional arguments, but it briefly stated that it found the district court's reasoning that the live-operator requirement did not violate the First Amendment persuasive. FreeEats [4] argues that if this Court does not affirm the trial court's order on Article 1, Section 9 grounds, then this Court should affirm the order on First Amendment grounds. [5] Essentially, FreeEats presents alternative constitutional arguments: if we determine the Autodialer Law's live-operator requirement does not violate the free speech provision of the state constitution, then we should determine that it does violate the free speech provision of the Federal Constitution. We do not believe this alternative federal free speech argument is properly before us. We recognize the principle that where a trial court has made special findings pursuant to a party's request under Trial Rule 52(A), the reviewing court may affirm the judgment on any legal theory supported by the findings. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 695 N.E.2d 920, 923 (Ind.1998). Notably, this case involves two facts that take it out of the purview of this principle: first, this Court is not reviewing a judgment but rather an interlocutory order granting a preliminary injunction; and, second, the trial court's special findings were not pursuant to a party's request but were mandatory under Indiana Trial Rule 52(A)(1). We believe the first fact is especially significant. A preliminary injunction is not a final judgment but rather an extraordinary equitable remedy that should be granted in rare instances. Gary Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Eldridge, 774 N.E.2d 579, 584 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied. Furthermore, due to the provisional nature of a preliminary injunction, the record on review is not fully developed. See Jos. Guidone's Food Palace, Inc. v. Palace Pharmacy, Inc., 252 Ind. 400, 406, 248 N.E.2d 354, 357 (Ind.1969). Thus, with those considerations in mind, a review of a grant or denial of a preliminary injunction should be confined to the law applied by the trial court, and this Court should evaluate only the merits of arguments reached by the trial court. We find this consistent with the limited and deferential appellate standard of review afforded to trial court rulings on motions for preliminary injunction. Because we decline to extend the holding from Mitchell to orders granting or denying preliminary injunctions, FreeEats's First Amendment claim is not properly before this Court at this time, as the trial court did not address the merits of that claim. Notwithstanding that fact, we will briefly state why, based on the record before us, FreeEats's First Amendment claim is likely to fail. To determine the proper standard for evaluating the Autodialer Law under the free speech provision of the First Amendment, we must determine (1) whether the Autodialer Law is content neutral and (2) what type of forum is involved. See Van Bergen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1541, 1550-53 (8th Cir.1995). A statute similar to the Autodialer Law was challenged on First Amendment grounds in Van Bergen. We find the Eighth Circuit's First Amendment analysis in that case on point. The United States Supreme Court has provided that the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions `are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.' Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989) (quoting Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984)). Importantly, [a] regulation that serves purposes unrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others. Id. We find the Autodialer Law content neutral because, with limited exceptions, it applies to all autodialed calls regardless of the call's content. Similar to the exceptions found in the statute in Van Bergen, the exceptions within the Autodialer Law [6] are based on relationships implying the subscriber's consent to receive the caller's communications. Van Bergen, 59 F.3d at 1550. These relationship-based exceptions do not affect the content neutrality of the Autodialer Law. See id. at 1550-51. Furthermore, the standards to evaluate limitations on speech `differ depending on the character of the property at issue.' Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 479, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988) (quoting Perry Educ. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 44, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983)). We agree with the comprehensive Van Bergen analysis that the telephone system is neither a public property nonpublic forum, nor a limited public forum, but a private channel of communication. 59 F.3d at 1553 (finding support from numerous United States Supreme Court cases to reach that conclusion). There is nothing unusual about the use of the telephone system in this case that would compel us to decide this point differently than the Eighth Circuit decided it. Accordingly, we conclude that the Autodialer Law is content neutral and that the restriction on speech is made through private channels to reach private residences. In these circumstances, the appropriate test for determining whether the Autodialer Law passes muster under the First Amendment is whether it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest while leaving open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. Ward, 491 U.S. at 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746. We find the Autodialer Law meets this standard and thus does not violate the First Amendment. We first find that the Autodialer Law serves a significant governmental interest. As this Court stated in American Family Voices, the purpose behind the Autodialer Law is to protect the privacy, tranquility, and efficiency of telephone customers. 898 N.E.2d at 295. And it is well established that the protection of residential privacy is a significant governmental interest. See, e.g., Frisby, 487 U.S. at 484, 108 S.Ct. 2495. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that individuals are not required to welcome unwanted speech into their own homes and that the government may protect this freedom. Id. at 485, 108 S.Ct. 2495. Robocalls generate a harm that directly impacts the interest of residential privacy. As aptly stated in Van Bergen, the disruption from robocalls is evident to anyone who has received such unsolicited calls when busy with other activities. 59 F.3d at 1554. The State notes that FreeEats has admitted that it can dial more than 1.7 million homes in approximately seven hours and that it might call each home as many as three times before leaving a pre-recorded message on an answering machine at targeted homes. Furthermore, the Autodialer Law, specifically in regards to its live-operator requirement, is narrowly tailored to serve the interest of residential privacy. [W]hen a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement even though it is not the least restrictive or least intrusive means of serving the statutory goal. Hill v. Colorado. 530 U.S. 703, 726, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000). The Autodialer Law prohibits FreeEats from disseminating robocalls when FreeEats has not obtained the subscriber's consent prior to the call or when FreeEats does not use a live operator to obtain the consent at the outset of the call. Thus, FreeEats is free to use its AIC technology once it obtains consent in one of the authorized manners. Importantly, a live operator allows call recipients to decline to listen to the robocalls and request that their residences not be contacted again; in effect, homeowners are empowered to manage the robocalls disseminated to their homes. Thus, while promoting residential privacy, the Autodialer Law does not foreclose the use of AIC technology. Finally, the statute leaves open ample alternative forms of communication. FreeEats and its clients are free to deliver their messages through various methods, such as robocalls preceded by a live operator at the outset, robocalls when prior consent has been given, direct mail, radio, television, etc. Based on the foregoing considerations, this Court finds that FreeEats is likely to fail on its claim that the Autodialer Law runs afoul of the First Amendment.