The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently handed down a decision that impacts the TCPA landscape. In Family Health Physical Medicine, LLC v. Pulse8, LLC, the court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a TCPA claim,...more
One of the key issues relating to the NPRM pertains to consent being sent directly to/obtained by one seller at a time. The FCC has now circulated its proposed rule. It has not been adopted yet but it looks like it will be...more
The Eighth Circuit in BPP v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C., 2022 WL 16955461 (8th Cir. 2022), recently affirmed a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment because the fax at issue was not an “unsolicited...more
The Second Circuit recently affirmed a Southern District of New York judgment denying injunctive relief against Educational Testing Service (“ETS”), which was sought by serial TCPA-plaintiff, Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley. ...more
A circuit split has emerged over faxes offering “free” goods, money, or services and whether they constitute an “unsolicited advertisement” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the TCPA)....more
Invites to free webinars are not unsolicited advertisements, says Maryland federal court - The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits sending an “unsolicited advertisement” to a fax machine, absent certain...more
Less than a year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021), dealt a significant blow to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) plaintiff's bar, when it adopted a narrow interpretation of...more
On January 6, 2021, the Second Circuit issued an order criticizing and declining to adopt a Third Circuit ruling regarding the scope of the term “unsolicited advertisement” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act...more
The Eastern District of Missouri recently granted a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against three defendants in a TCPA fax case. Levine Hat Co. v. Innate Intelligence, LLC, No. 16-cv-01132, 2021 WL 1889869 (E.D. Mo....more
In True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corp., et al., the Northern District of California held that it was divested of jurisdiction by the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2342, and thus could not reconsider the validity...more
Unsolicited advertisements sent by fax to online fax services are not covered by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has ruled....more
Generally, text message platform providers are not considered the “sender” or “maker” of a text message or call unless they are so involved in placing the call as to be deemed to have “made or initiated” it themselves. The...more
In E&G, Inc. v. Mount Vernon Mills, Inc., No. 17-0218, 2019 WL 4032951 (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2019), the District of South Carolina denied class certification because individualized issues—specifically, whether recipients had...more
At the end of the Supreme Court’s most recent term, the Court released its long-awaited ruling in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 2051 (June 20, 2019)—a case that could have carried...more
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is one of the most frequently litigated statutes, spurring individual, and more often, national class action litigation. The pace at which new TCPA suits are filed is not slowing,...more
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits unsolicited calls, text messages and faxes; it’s a federal statute that provides for statutory damages between $500-$1,500 per violation. With the speed and ease (and...more
Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in 1992 to regulate how people communicate by phone and fax. The TCPA gave the Federal Communications Commission regulatory authority to issue rules expanding on the...more
In its long-awaited ruling addressing whether the Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act) requires district courts to accept the FCC's legal interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the TCPA), the...more
TCPA litigators have been closely monitoring the U.S. Supreme Court's docket waiting for a ruling in the PDR Network case. At stake is what kind of judicial deference should be given to the FCC's interpretation of the...more
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded for consideration to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit two preliminary questions antecedent to the main issue of whether federal district courts must defer to the Federal...more
In November 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court had granted certiorari in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., to decide whether the Hobbs Act required the district court to accept the Federal Communications...more
Are district courts prohibited in every instance from considering challenges to the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”)’s interpretation of certain provisions in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act – or can district...more
In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal district court was not necessarily bound by the Federal Communications Commission’s prior interpretation of a federal statute over which the agency has...more
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court declined to review a Ninth Circuit ruling regarding what does and doesn’t qualify as an “advertisement.” Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC v. RingCentral, Inc., No. 18-1381, 2019 WL 1959304 (U.S....more
Dodging the question of whether the Hobbs Act requires a federal court to accept the 2006 Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Order that provides the legal interpretation for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),...more