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
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
Recent Open Meeting Foreshadows FCC Commissioners’ Views if ACA Decision Is Remanded
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
Is your company covered?
We are taking a closer look into insurance coverage for statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Our Insurance Recovery Group authored a featured article in FC&S Legal’s Insurance Coverage Law Report, which highlights guidelines that will come into play when your company is being named as a…
What Was Buried In The Budget Bill
Anyone paying attention to goings-on in Washington last month might have heard a loud, bipartisan sigh of relief when both the House and the Senate passed a budget deal that temporarily averted another government shutdown or even a near-term showdown, and could possibly clear the way for a little less gridlock — at least until…
What Do You Get for the Plaintiff Who Has Everything? Maybe a Class Action, Ruled The Seventh Circuit
Perturbed by two allegedly unwanted faxes, Arnold Chapman brought a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). For himself, he sought the most the statute could provide – $3,000, an injunction, and costs. ($3,000 represents $500 in statutory damages for each of the two faxes, trebled for an allegedly knowing or wilful violation.) The defendant offered Chapman $3,002, and the entry of an injunction, and costs. Chapman let the offer expire without accepting it. The District Court dismissed the case as moot.
Chapman appealed, and late last week, the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court ruling. In Arnold Chapman v. First Index, Inc., the Seventh Circuit held that an expired offer of judgment does not moot an individual plaintiff’s claims. In so ruling, the panel reversed circuit precedent and aligned itself with the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits on the issue.Continue Reading What Do You Get for the Plaintiff Who Has Everything? Maybe a Class Action, Ruled The Seventh Circuit
FCC’S Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Robocalls and Call-Blocking Issues Raised by 39 Attorneys General
On November 24, the FCC released a wide-ranging public notice seeking comment on a September 9, 2014, letter from the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), purportedly written “on behalf of the millions of Americans regularly receiving unwanted and harassing telemarketing calls.” The letter, signed by a bipartisan group of 39 AGs led by Chris…
FCC Confirms that Even Solicited Fax Ads Must Contain Opt-Out Language, and Sets Six-Month Deadline for Companies to Seek a Retroactive Waiver
On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a much-anticipated ruling (“FCC Order”) resolving several petitions seeking clarification of the opt-out notice requirement regarding advertisements faxed to consumers, contained in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, section 227 of the Communications Act (“TCPA”). The FCC ruled that all such faxes, even those sent with the recipient’s prior…
Applying a Plain Meaning Interpretation to ‘Automatic Telephone Dialing System,’ the Southern District of California Dismisses TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
This post was written by Raymond Y. Kim and Jack J. Gindi.
On October 23, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California further clarified the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (“TCPA”) definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) and granted summary judgment for the defendant on the grounds that it did…
TCPA: The Muddled Madness Continues!
Tuesday evening, the Federal Communication Bar Association held a seminar in Washington designed to help practitioners make some sense of the ever-expanding number of class actions that have been brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by often over-zealous plaintiffs’ attorneys; the inconsistent decisions that have been rendered by the courts; and the scores…
Mandatory Arbitration: the next big thing in TCPA litigation?
This post was also written by Rob Jackson.
In a recent case, Smith v. Citibank, N.A., Craig Smith, the borrower, filed a class action against Citibank in state court in California alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and the state law regulating debt collection practices. In his complaint, Mr. Smith claimed…