The key issue is how to interpret ambiguous language in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) definition of “automatic telephone dialing system.” The Eleventh Circuit panel’s decision in Glasser rejects that trend, joins the D.C. Circuit in adopting a much narrower view of the TCPA’s scope, and establishes a clear circuit split with the Ninth Circuit.
It was a very busy year on the robocall front, and on 30 December 2019, President Trump signed into law the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act (S. 151), which the House and Senate passed by wide, bipartisan margins earlier this year. The TRACED Act is the most significant robocall legislation
On December 19, 2019, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act (S. 151), which the House of Representatives passed in a 417-3 vote earlier this month. With the Senate’s passage of the reconciled bill, the bipartisan legislation now heads to President Trump’s desk for his review.
On October 2, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Consumer Call Protection Act of 2019 to address the rise in deceptive robocalls and protect California consumers from fraudulent calls. The law requires telecommunications service providers to implement Secure Telephony Identity Revisited (STIR) and Secure Handling of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN) protocols by January 1, 2021. These protocols are designed to attest to the authenticity of caller identification data and provide service providers with information to help ensure that calls are not spoofed.
“For years, the plaintiffs’ bar has conjured multibillion-dollar class action lawsuits out of largely intangible privacy harms. This wave of litigation is increasingly driven by federal and state statutes that include private rights of action and allow for excessive statutory damages. Given the willingness of some courts to let cases proceed despite a lack of
As we head towards 2020, it’s time once again for the decennial U.S. national Census – one of the broadest data collections that the United States federal government undertakes to learn more about its citizens, recalibrate Congressional districts, allocate public funding, and deliver critical public services. But the government’s ability to conduct the upcoming Census
In St. Louis Heart Center v. Nomax, Inc., the Eighth Circuit held that an “alleged failure to provide a technically compliant opt-out notice” in a fax advertisement, without more, does not give a plaintiff Article III standing to bring a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claim. The Eighth Circuit’s decision requires that the alleged injury
Both Chambers of Congress are considering legislation that would amend the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Introduced in the House by Congressman Pallone (H.R. 6026) and in the Senate (S. 3078) by Senator Markey, the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act adds a new definition, “robocall,” in place of “automated telephone dialing system.” The new term would
As the number of frivolous Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class actions continues to grow unabated, the potential rewards have even led to alleged criminal activity by plaintiff firms seeking to game the system. A recently settled Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) complaint showcases a particularly egregious series of allegations that several plaintiffs’
Now that the dust has settled from the D.C. Circuit’s highly anticipated Telephone Consumer Protection Act decision in ACA International, et al, v. FCC, the Federal Communications Commission is going back to the drawing board in a new Public Notice that seeks comment on foundational TCPA issues. In March, the D.C. Circuit struck down the
Growing evidence suggests that existing Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) compliance challenges, and the current TCPA litigation landscape, are increasingly a threat to many U.S. companies – particularly small businesses that have fewer resources and could face financial ruin if targeted by a class action lawsuit. To help address this issue and support the U.S.
A new study has found that litigation involving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) has increased 50 percent since the Federal Communications Commission released its July 2015 “Omnibus” Declaratory Ruling and Order, which had purported to clarify several issues around the agency’s TCPA rules. As explained below, this continuing trend is one of many reasons
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has adopted a Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”) imposing a $82 million penalty against Best Insurance Contracts (d/b/a Wilmington Insurance Quotes) and its owner/operator Philip Roesel for allegedly making more than 21 million prerecorded robocalls with illegally “spoofed” caller ID information in an attempt to sell health insurance.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has adopted a Forfeiture Order (“Order”) imposing a nearly $2.9 million penalty against Dialing Services, LLC (“Dialing Services”) for making prerecorded voice calls to wireless phones without the “prior express consent” of the called parties. This Order is notable because the FCC targeted the technology platform provider rather than the
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.
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
Michele Farquhar and Mark W. Brennan authored an article for the December 2012 issue of E-Commerce Law & Policy. Titled “The US Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Litigation Risk,” the article highlights a number of recent Telephone Consumer Protection Act legal developments and their impact on mobile financial services and other new wireless services and