AGG Talks: Background Screening - A Refresher on Responding to Consumer File Requests under Section 609 of the FCRA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast: Texas v. United States of America
Takeaway: In Drazen v. Pinto, 74 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit held a single “unwanted, illegal” text message sufficient to establish concrete injury for standing purposes. This holding...more
In the case of Drazen v. Pinto, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc ruled unanimously that plaintiffs who received a single unwanted telemarketing text message suffered a concrete injury. In 2019, Susan...more
The Eleventh Circuit has now joined seven other circuits in holding that receipt of unwanted text messages constitutes concrete injury for standing. On July 24, the Eleventh Circuit issued an en banc decision in Drazen v....more
Vacating an Arbitration Award- The Bullet Point: Ohio’s Arbitration Act strongly favors arbitration. Because of this, Ohio’s Arbitration Act limits the jurisdiction of a court once an arbitration has been conducted. It also...more
In the intricate and often convoluted realm of TCPA litigation, the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Hall v. Smosh Dot Com, Inc. stands as a beacon, illuminating the complexities of Article III standing and the implications...more
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently stayed Simpson v. J.G. Wentworth Co. in light of the Eleventh Circuit's pending en banc decision in Drazen v. Pinto. Both cases involve similar Telephone...more
As discussed here, on July 27, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sua sponte vacated the district court’s approval of a $35 million class-action settlement in Drazen and Godaddy.com, LLC (Godaddy) v. Pinto. Although...more
The District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a TCPA lawsuit for lack of Article III standing, holding that five unsolicited text messages did not constitute a concrete injury. Muccio v. Global...more
Courts continue to grapple with issues surrounding Florida’s Telephone Solicitation Act, including what types of claims are sufficient to allege a concrete injury in fact to establish standing under Article III. In...more
Several years ago, in Salcedo v. Hanna, the Eleventh Circuit held that the receipt of a single allegedly unsolicited, autodialed text message was not a concrete enough injury-in-fact to establish Article III standing for a...more
For years, the plaintiffs’ bar has been filing Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions alleging the receipt of unsolicited, autodialed text messages. But the TCPA’s autodialer prohibition explicitly refers to...more
On May 26, 2021, the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) putative class action arising from the transmission of a single text message to the plaintiff. The...more
Takeaway: TCPA defendants beware: it takes only a single, unsolicited text message for a plaintiff to establish Article III standing in the Fifth Circuit. In Cranor v. 5 Star Nutrition, L.L.C., --- F.3d ---, No. 19-51173,...more
A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently concluded that receipt of unwanted text messages in violation of the TCPA can constitute an injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III...more
The Fifth Circuit recently held that a TCPA plaintiff who received a single text message suffered an Article III injury sufficient to support standing for his claim. In Cranor v. 5 Star Nutrition, L.L.C., No. 19-51173, 2021...more
Defense arguments about a plaintiff’s lack of standing in federal court can come back to bite them, as shown by the Southern District of Florida’s recent decision in Guerra v. Newport Beach Auto. Grp. LLC, No. 21-20568, 2021...more
Last year, the Eleventh Circuit held in Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019) that a plaintiff did not have Article III standing to sue for a violation of the TCPA based on receipt of a single text message. The...more
The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a TCPA claim sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiff had not alleged a concrete injury-in-fact. See Perez v. Golden Trust Insurance,...more
In a pair of recent opinions, two U.S. district courts in different parts of Texas expressed inconsistent views on a topic we have been following closely: whether plaintiffs who receive just a single unwanted text message can...more
The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a TCPA putative class action for lack of standing, finding that the plaintiff could not show he suffered a concrete injury-in-fact. Reinforcing Eleventh Circuit precedent,...more
“The chirp, buzz, or blink of a cell phone receiving a single text message is more akin to walking down a busy sidewalk and having a flyer briefly waved in one’s face. Annoying, perhaps, but not a basis for invoking the...more
On August 28, the Eleventh Circuit held that receiving one unsolicited text message is not a concrete injury that establishes Article III standing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The opinion creates a...more
The Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in Salcedo v. Hanna, brings good news to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) defense bar by breathing new life into challenges objecting to statutory injury in TCPA class...more
Last week, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a single unsolicited text message doesn’t meet the harm requirement necessary to proceed with a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claim. The Eleventh Circuit ruling, Salcedo...more
Does receipt of a single unsolicited text message amount to an “injury in fact” sufficient to establish Article III standing to bring a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit? The Eleventh Circuit says, “no.”...more