On January 20, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, No. 14–857 (Jan. 20, 2016), holding that a defendant cannot moot a plaintiff’s claim under Article III of the U.S. Constitution by making a settlement offer that would provide the plaintiff complete relief, which the plaintiff refuses. Although the decision rejects one cost-effective way to resolve a plaintiff’s claim without protracted litigation, it explicitly leaves open the possibility that the result would be different for a defendant that actually delivers payment to the plaintiff rather than merely offering to do so. The Court also left open the possibility that such a scenario would moot the plaintiff’s ability to bring claims on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs in addition to the plaintiff’s individual claims, thus limiting a defendant’s exposure to classwide liability.

BACKGROUND -

In this Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) case, the Navy engaged a marketing firm, defendant Campbell-Ewald Company (“Campbell”), to create and implement a multimedia recruiting campaign. The campaign involved the transmission of text messages to over 100,000 young adults who previously had consented to receiving solicitations related to service in the Navy. Plaintiff Jose Gomez received a text message, but claimed that he never “opted in” to receiving such messages. He filed a class action lawsuit for alleged violations of the TCPA, which entitles a plaintiff to statutory damages of $500 for each unsolicited “call [or text] . . . using any automatic telephone dialing system . . . to any telephone number assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), (b)(3). Gomez sought treble statutory damages for allegedly willful or knowing violations, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), costs, and attorney’s fees, as well as an injunction against future unsolicited text messaging.