The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a historic $120 million fine against an individual, Mr. Adrian Abramovich, who reportedly made more than 100 million unlawful “spoofed” robocalls in violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act. On June 22, 2017, the Commission approved a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture finding Mr. Abramovich apparently liable
On June 22, 2017, in Reyes v. Lincoln Automotive Financial Services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with Hogan Lovells attorneys representing the defendant and held that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) does not permit a consumer to revoke her consent to be called when that consent forms part of
How do you protect your business from costly Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuits and regulatory enforcement actions? In this webinar, we will focus on the key decisions facing company executives as they navigate TCPA risks and assess compliance strategies. Businesses must stay in touch with their customers and their partners in order to succeed. But
The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) recently imposed a $1.84 million penalty for sending unsolicited fax advertisements. According to the agency’s forfeiture order, Scott Malcolm, DSM Supply, LLC and Somaticare, LLC (the “DSM Parties”) sent 115 unsolicited fax advertisements to 26 consumers, primarily health care practitioners, in violation of the FCC’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”)
In January, the United States Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. __ (2016), a significant case for companies defending against consumer and other class actions, including those based on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) – as well as for contractors working on behalf of the federal government.
On September 29, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Public Notice seeking comments on the Broadnet Teleservices, LLC (Broadnet) petition asking the FCC to declare that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) does not apply to calls made by or on behalf of federal, state, and local governments, when such calls are made
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has released a copy of a letter that it sent to PayPal stating that the agency was closing an investigation into potential Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) violations by the company. This release provides important insights on how companies can design their user agreements to avoid TSR violations. As background, PayPal
As many of our readers know, on July 10, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a highly anticipated decision regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and related FCC rules involving autodialed and prerecorded telephone calls and text messages. Although the order became effective upon release, in less than a week, three parties (ACA International,
Today, FCC Chairman Wheeler announced that he is circulating a proposal to address more than twenty pending petitions seeking clarity regarding the scope requirements under the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). He authored a blog post on the proposal and also released a fact sheet. As part of the Chairman’s proposal, the FCC would
Highlighting the intersection between government contracts, communications privacy, and class action litigation, the United States Supreme Court recently received a petition for a writ of certiorari asking it to rule on whether derivative sovereign immunity should be extended to a government contractor’s violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Petitioner, Campbell-Ewald Co., was
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted two Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) decisions that significantly impact compliance obligations for a wide range of organizations that make or facilitate voice calls or text messages to consumers. In the first order, the Cargo Airline Association (CAA), represented by Hogan Lovells, obtained a first-of-its-kind exemption from the
Mitch Zamoff, Adam Levin, Mark Brennan, and Tim Tobin have published an overview of recent Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation, regulatory compliance developments, and tips for minimizing enterprise risk. Please find the full update here.
Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, with the intention of protecting consumers from unwanted calls, text messages, and faxes. There has been a significant increase in the number of TCPA claims and enforcement actions filed in recent years, and yet there remain many unsettled legal questions. Read More: TCPA
A Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has direct implications for all organizations that employ third-party providers to conduct their outbound calling and text messaging campaigns. It could also impact the extent to which courts will defer to portions of the FCC’s TCPA orders
In an ever-changing technological landscape, organizations are increasingly at risk under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). The TCPA imposes restrictions on telemarketing and the use of automated telephone equipment, affecting any organization that engages with consumers through text messages, prerecorded calls, faxes, and other advanced technologies. Regulators and plaintiffs’ class-action attorneys are targeting alleged
Businesses that use automated technologies to place telemarketing calls and messages have just over a month to assess and revise their current calling practices to avoid the risk of expensive, time-consuming lawsuits under new Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) rules enacted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
In a decision with important implications for companies that hire outside marketing firms, a federal judge has certified a class of nearly 60,000 individuals who allegedly received an unsolicited text message from a marketing company hired by Stonebridge Life Insurance Company. The plaintiff in Lee v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company and Trifecta Marketing Company, LLC, 3:11-cv-00043 (N.D. Cal.) alleges