Telephone Consumer Protection Violations Prosecutions
1. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012)
Facts:
Consumers received unsolicited automated calls from Arrow Financial Services seeking debt repayment.
Calls were made without prior consent to cell phones.
Legal Issue:
Whether the TCPA allows private lawsuits in federal court.
Outcome:
Supreme Court held that TCPA claims can be filed in federal court.
Key point: This case established that victims of unauthorized calls can bring federal lawsuits for damages.
2. ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018)
Facts:
ACA International challenged FCC regulations expanding the definition of prior express consent for automated calls.
Legal Issue:
Whether the FCC’s 2015 rules on robocalls exceeded its statutory authority.
Outcome:
Court partially vacated FCC rules but maintained that automated calls without consent are unlawful.
Key point: The scope of “prior express consent” is critical; businesses must ensure clear consent before contacting consumers.
3. Dominguez v. Yahoo, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
Facts:
Yahoo sent unsolicited text messages to consumers’ mobile phones promoting services.
Legal Issue:
Whether text messages sent without prior consent violate the TCPA.
Outcome:
Court ruled that unsolicited texts constitute TCPA violations and awarded statutory damages.
Key point: The TCPA applies broadly to calls, texts, and automated messages.
4. Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009)
Facts:
Simon & Schuster sent promotional texts without recipients’ consent.
Legal Issue:
Whether a text message sent using an automated system qualifies as a TCPA violation.
Outcome:
Ninth Circuit held that automated text messages without prior consent violate the TCPA.
Key point: The case reinforced that mobile text messages are covered under the TCPA’s call and message restrictions.
5. Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018)
Facts:
Gym membership telemarketing used automated calls and prerecorded messages without consumer consent.
Legal Issue:
Whether consent obtained via “opt-in” forms that were unclear is valid under the TCPA.
Outcome:
Court ruled that ambiguous consent forms do not satisfy TCPA requirements; damages awarded to consumers.
Key point: Businesses must have clear, unambiguous consent before automated calls or texts.
6. Breslow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186240 (S.D. Cal.)
Facts:
Wells Fargo made repeated automated calls to a consumer’s cell phone about mortgage payments, despite requests to stop.
Legal Issue:
Whether calls after a “do not call” request constitute a TCPA violation.
Outcome:
Court awarded statutory damages under the TCPA, emphasizing that repeated calls after revocation of consent are actionable.
Key point: Consumers have the right to revoke prior consent; ignoring this revocation increases liability.
Legal Takeaways from TCPA Prosecutions:
Consent is Key: Automated calls or texts without prior express consent violate the TCPA.
Statutory Damages: Consumers can recover $500 per call or text, up to $1,500 for willful violations.
Revocation Matters: Ignoring “do not call” requests escalates liability.
Text Messages Covered: The TCPA applies to SMS and MMS as well as voice calls.
Robust Enforcement: Both federal agencies (FCC, FTC) and private parties can enforce TCPA rules.
RELATED Blog
0 comments