This post was also written by Rob Jackson.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently released a decision in a TCPA suit brought by a man seeking damages in connection with a series of autodialed telephone calls made to his mobile phone. In his decision on cross motions for summary judgment,

This post was written by Amy S. Mushahwar.

PLEASE NOTE that the amendments to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) regulations implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) published by the FCC June 11, 2012, and relating, most significantly, to the necessity of obtaining written consent before placing some autodialed calls or sending some prerecorded

This post was also written by Amy S. Mushahwar.

Appellant, joined by a number of amicae including the American Bankers Association, is seeking rehearing or rehearing en banc in connection with a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit that should be of grave concern to any entity that uses auto-dialers in its contacts with

This post was written by Amy S. Mushahwar.

Over the course of the past couple weeks, the Federal Communications Commission released a flurry of Public Notices, putting out for comment seven pending Requests for Declaratory Rulings, most relating to the use of auto-dialing technologies, and all relating to application of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

On January 24, 2025, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277, that the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) one-to-one consent requirement rule (the “FCC Rule”) went beyond the FCC’s authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The court held

On March 2, 2020, Reed Smith and the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) presented a panel discussion on 2020 privacy laws and trends featuring Attorney General Christopher Carr of Georgia; Linda Holleran Kopp of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC); and Oriana Senatore, Senior Vice President of Policy & Research at the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR).

A clear theme from the discussion was that federal legislation is the best path for privacy reform in the United States.  The current “patchwork quilt” of federal and state data privacy laws and enforcement by the FTC (and other agencies) as well as by states – now complicated exponentially by enforcement actions by cities and counties and the presence of private rights of action increasingly proposed for state privacy legislation – is not the way to best balance privacy consumer protection and business compliance.  Indeed, the evolving privacy landscape is now approaching a “crazy quilt patchwork.”
Continue Reading Georgia AG, FTC and US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform discuss “crazy quilt patchwork” of privacy laws in the US

Massachusetts state Senator Cynthia Creem has introduced a consumer data privacy bill, SD 341, that would give Massachusetts consumers the right to sue in the event their personal information or biometric data is improperly collected or distributed or for any other potential violation of the new law. Under SD 341, and similar to Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), consumers may not be required to demonstrate or have suffered monetary or property losses in order to seek damages for an alleged violation. Any violation of the proposed new law could be grounds for a valid private action.

The proposed bill is the latest signal that state legislatures are going to be increasingly active in regulating data protection issues. California’s new California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is considered an expansion of privacy-related regulation beyond any existing federal or state law. Although the CCPA will not go into effect until January 2020, businesses are busy implementing compliance policies and procedures, including making plans now to ensure they can adequately and accurately respond to consumers’ requests regarding the type and nature of personal information they may possess on California residents. The Massachusetts bill appears to have many of the same characteristics as the CCPA, but its private right of action provision would be a boon for the plaintiff’s bar. Like Illinois’ BIPA and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which have spawned scores of class action lawsuits, SD 341 does not require proof of actual damages. It states that “a violation of this chapter shall constitute an injury in fact to the consumer who has suffered the violation, and the consumer need not suffer a loss of money or property as a result of the violation in order to bring an action for a violation of this chapter.” A prevailing plaintiff can receive the greater of $750 “per consumer incident” or actual damages and can also receive attorneys’ fees.Continue Reading Comprehensive data privacy legislation introduced in Massachusetts – includes private right of action without a need to prove harm

As the cherry blossoms prepare to bloom in Washington, D.C., our thoughts turn toward wondering when the D.C. Circuit will hand down its ruling in ACA International, et al v. FCC (Case No. 15-1211). This case, you will recall, is the consolidation of a number of appeals challenging the July 10, 2015, Order in which the FCC gave a very expansive reading to a number of provisions in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), long a thorn in the sides of businesses attempting to communicate with their customers by phone or text. Most notably, the Order provided a definition of an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) that many feel went way beyond the statutory language the Order was purporting to interpret. Moreover, the Order afforded little satisfaction to businesses mistakenly dialing reassigned numbers. Our previous blog posts analyzing the Order and the Appeal predicted that the D.C. Circuit would most likely issue its decision in spring 2017.

And now, spring has sprung, the administration has changed, and so, too, has the chairman of the FCC. Chairman Wheeler, sometimes criticized for interpreting the law liberally to accomplish policy goals, is gone, and in his place is Ajit Pai, a commissioner in the Wheeler era, and now elevated to chair by President Trump. In summer 2015, Mr. Pai was one of two dissenters in the ACA Order; the other, Michael O’Reilly, remains a commissioner under Chairman Pai. Additionally, two of the three “yes” votes in ACA are now gone, with only Commissioner Clyburn still at the Agency, and the president seems in no hurry to fill the vacancies. In any event, filling those vacancies would likely not affect the current balance of power at the Commission.
Continue Reading Recent Open Meeting Foreshadows FCC Commissioners’ Views if ACA Decision Is Remanded