TCPA Watch – Page 9 – Business, legal and policy developments under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Senate Commerce Committee Calls Up the TCPA for Review

May 21 2016

On May 18, 2016, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing to examine the TCPA’s effects on businesses and consumers, and assess whether the law is ripe for reform. The TCPA will mark its 25-year anniversary this coming December and, according to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD), is “showing its age.” (The hearing transcript may be found here.)

The Committee members who spoke at the hearing were, in general, divided on party lines on the need for reform. Republicans noted the rising tide of TCPA litigation – now the second most filed type of case in federal courts – and the corresponding costs in terms of money outlays, delays in providing consumers with important health, safety, and financial information, and lost innovation opportunities. They also noted that the average payout to plaintiffs’ attorneys in TCPA suits is approximately $2.4 million, while the average consumer award is just $4.12. Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) observed that Congress needs to figure how to address two very different problems — the problem of scam robocalls being generated from overseas and the problem of legitimate businesses trying to reach people whose numbers have been reassigned.

Supreme Court Decision on Article III Injury-in-Fact in Spokeo Potentially Impacts Class Certification

May 19 2016

By Andrew C. Glass, Joseph C. Wylie II, Gregory N. Blase, Molly K. McGinley, Roger L. Smerage, and Eric W. Lee

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, — U.S. — (No. 13-1339). In rendering its decision, the Court reiterated that to establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must plead an injury-in-fact that is both particular to the plaintiff and concrete. The Court explained that whether a plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to allege a concrete injury requires more than just examining whether the plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant violated a federal statute. In particular, the Court held that “a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm,” does not suffice to “satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.” As such, the Spokeo plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant’s actions had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq., would not, by itself, demonstrate a plausible injury-in-fact. Rather, “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.”

Sixth Circuit Rejects Application of Agency Principles to Fax Broadcast Liability Under TCPA

May 16 2016

By Joseph C. Wylie II, Molly K. McGinley, Nicole C. Mueller, Courtney E. Torres

In its May 9, 2016, ruling in Siding and Insulation Co. v. Alco Vending, Inc., the Sixth Circuit rejected the application of traditional agency principles to determine whether a company was liable for faxes sent “on its behalf.” Instead, the Sixth Circuit held that the FCC’s 1995 Order, imposing liability on “the party on whose behalf a solicitation is made,” represented the FCC’s decision not to base TCPA liability for fax activity on a vicarious liability analysis. In so holding, the Sixth Circuit joins the Eleventh Circuit in adopting this analysis, and rejects the vicarious-liability analysis recently adopted by the Seventh Circuit for fax activity.

Political Organizations Mount First Amendment Challenge to TCPA’s Cell Phone Ban Restricting Autodialed and Prerecorded Voice Calls to Constituents

May 16 2016

By Joseph C. Wylie II, Molly K. McGinley, Courtney E. Torres

Although the primary target of the TCPA is telemarketing and commercial solicitations, certain TCPA restrictions, including prohibitions on the use of prerecorded voice messages and automatic telephone dialing systems (“ATDS”) for calls placed to cellular phones, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) (hereinafter “the cell phone ban”), apply with equal force to calls made by political campaigns.

On May 12, 2016, several political organizations, American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. (“AAPC”), Democratic Party of Oregon, Inc. (“DPO”), Public Policy Polling, LLC (“PPP”), Tea Party Forward PAC (“TPF”), and Washington State Democratic Central Committee (“WSDCC”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), brought a First Amendment challenge to the prohibition on making unsolicited calls to wireless telephone numbers by filing a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Attorney General of the United States. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al. v. Lynch, No. 5:16-cv-00252-D (E.D.N.C. May 12, 2016).

Eighth Circuit Articulates New Ascertainability Standard in TCPA Class Actions

May 11 2016

By Joseph C. Wylie II, Molly K. McGinley, Nicole C. Mueller, Courtney E. Torres

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court’s decision not to certify a TCPA class on grounds that the proposed class was not ascertainable. In so doing, the Eighth Circuit declined to adopt the Third Circuit’s heightened standard for ascertainability as a “separate, preliminary requirement” for class certification. In the published opinion, the Court articulated its own “rigorous analysis of Rule 23 requirements, which includes that a class ‘must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.’”

In Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medtox Scientific, Inc., Plaintiff alleged that MedTox, a toxicology lab, transmitted a single-page fax to approximately 3,000 fax numbers, all recorded onto a log in the plaintiff’s possession. Plaintiff moved to certify a class that included all people in the four years prior to the action’s filing who received a fax message from Medtox regarding lead testing services that did not display a proper opt-out notice. The district court, in denying class certification, held the plaintiff failed to show ascertainability because it could not establish who was included in the class. The trial court focused on the potential for multiple claimants with respect to individual faxes, noting that the class could be seen as including both the subscriber of the telephone line on which the fax was received, and the intended recipient of the fax.

Circuit and District Courts Grapple with Questions Raised in the Wake of Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez

Apr 27 2016

By Joseph C. Wylie II, Molly K. McGinley, Nicole C. Mueller

In the wake of Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, in which the Supreme Court held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of complete relief does not moot a plaintiff’s individual claims, the Third Circuit recently held that an unaccepted settlement offer “has no force” and therefore neither the plaintiffs’ individual claims nor the class claims in the suit were mooted by defendant’s offer of full relief prior to the filing of a motion to certify a class in Weitzner et al. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. et al. (Our previous analysis of Campbell-Ewald can be found here.)

Seventh Circuit Holds That TCPA Fax Regulations Do Not Impose Strict Liability for Actions of Contractors

Apr 26 2016

By Joseph C. Wylie II, Molly K. McGinley, Nicole C. Mueller

On March 21, 2016, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in Bridgeview Health Care Ctr., Ltd. v. Clark, Nos. 14-3728 & 15-1793 (7th. Cir. 2016), holding that agency principles apply to TCPA claims in determining whether a fax sent by a third-party is sent “on behalf of” a principal. In doing so, the Seventh Circuit applied a uniform standard of agency principles to fax advertisements and calls under the TCPA despite the Federal Communications Commission’s (the “FCC”) previous assertions that vicarious liability for fax activity is subject to a different and potentially broader test. As previously discussed, other courts have declined to apply agency principles to decide this question, in effect applying different standards to fax and call activity.

The New EU-US Privacy Shield: a New Deal on Personal Data Transfers

Feb 04 2016

By Bruce J. Heiman, Michael J. O’Neil, Ignasi Guardans, Etienne Drouard

On February 2, two days after the deadline set by Europe for agreement on a new Safe Harbor governing US access to the personal data of European citizens, US and EU negotiators announced that they had agreed upon a framework for a new data sharing agreement, which will be called the EU-US Privacy Shield, to replace the Safe Harbor agreement struck down by the European Court of Justice on October 6, 2015.

US companies adhering to the EU-US Privacy Shield, which has yet to be formally adopted by both the EU Commission and the US Department of Commerce, will be able to receive, store and use personal data from Europe according to its terms.

The key elements of the EU-US Privacy Shield, which aims to assure that US protections of European personal data will be essentially equivalent to that provided in Europe, will be:

Safe Harbor 2.0 is Coming (This Week)

Feb 01 2016

US companies will need to take action to comply with any new agreement

By Bruce J. Heiman, Ignasi Guardans, Etienne Drouard

As we explained in detail in our Explanatory note of October 6 2015, and the webinar that followed held on October 9, the Schrems decision of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) invalidated the US Safe Harbor program, and as a result of that most transfers of European personal data to the US done under that scheme became potentially illegal, if not covered by other legal options as described below.

Subsequently, Europe’s national Data Protection Authorities (DPAs), through the so called Article 29 Working Group, declared their intention not to bring enforcement actions against such EU – US data transfers before February 1, in order to give the US and EU time to reach a new agreement that could meet the objections raised by the CJEU.

Drones May Have Limited Range, But Regulatory Coordination Doesn’t Have To

Jan 22 2016

By Former Rep. James T. Walsh, contributor, and Rod Hall (Originally published in The Hill)

Safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the national airspace is one of the foremost policy challenges of 2016. But while Capitol Hill has largely focused on the regulatory efforts of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), developments overseas will also shape the future of the dynamic UAS industry in the year ahead.

Just before the end of the year, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) released its technical framework for UAS regulation across the 28 member states of the European Union. The framework will serve as the basis for rule-making activities at the EU and member-state levels in 2016 and 2017.