The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision Oct. 12 reversing the dismissal of a lawsuit on grounds that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act doesn't extend to unwanted business texts “serves as an important reminder that business-related texts can still run afoul of the TCPA,” Troutman Pepper said Monday. In Chennette v. Porch.com, the 9th Circuit held (see 2210130080) that TCPA statutory protections “extend not only to individuals, but also to business entities,” the law firm's post said. The litigation involved claims the defendants violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to send 7,527 text messages to plaintiff home improvement contractors with purported client leads, the firm said. Fifteen of the 51 plaintiffs had registered their numbers with the national do-not-call registry, it said. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending the plaintiffs “lacked statutory standing because the TCPA protects only individuals from unwanted calls, and the Idaho district court judge agreed,” it said. But the 9th Circuit rejected this argument, noting the TCPA “provides that a ‘person or entity’ may recover money damages or obtain injunctive relief under the statute,” it said. Based on past FCC guidance and district court findings around the country, the 9th Circuit “held that cellphones on the registry are presumptively residential phones and can still be considered residential when used for both personal and business purposes,” said the firm.

American Express inundated San Diego County consumer Joshua Them with debt collection calls made with an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded voice, often as much as four times a day, “almost every single day,” in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged a complaint Friday (docket 3:22-cv-01585) in U.S. District Court in San Diego. Them maintained his American Express credit card account in “good standing” until around October 2021, when he “fell on financial hardship and was unable to maintain the regular monthly payments,” it said. He hired a lawyer in July, who sent American Express a cease and desist letter on Them’s behalf, explicitly revoking any prior consent to contact his client “via the use of an automated dialing system phone, text, or other method, including but not limited to calls with a prerecorded or automated voice messages,” it said. But still the calls continued at the same frequency and pace as before the cease and desist letter, it said. Post-letter, Them estimates, American Express called his phone more than 75 times, said the complaint, which also alleges violations of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. American Express didn’t respond to requests for comment.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John Anderson in Alexandria, Virginia, signed an order Friday (docket 1:21-cv-00610) denying Marriott International’s motion to compel discovery from Dynasty Marketing Group, a defendant in its novel Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuit to curb telemarketing robocallers from infringing Marriott trademarks by posing as Marriott agents on their calls. Marriott attorneys had complained Dynasty was unresponsive to its repeated requests. But Dynasty lawyers filed a certificate Thursday attesting to their delivery to Marriott of their responses to “the first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents,” said Anderson’s order. In denying the motion to compel without prejudice, Anderson said the motion can be filed again once the parties have had a chance to confer over Thursday’s submission.

HyreCar, the car rental company for rideshare and food delivery, “engages in telemarketing without the requisite policies and procedures and training required” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act “and its implementing regulations,” alleged a class action Friday (docket 1:22-cv-23330) in U.S. District Court in Miami. HyreCar also doesn’t provide consumers “with instructions on how to opt-out of future text messages,” said the complaint, which also alleges Florida Telephone Solicitation Act violations. HyreCar didn’t immediately comment.

The Hennepin County, Minnesota, consumer who accused Kohl’s Thursday of Telephone Consumer Protection Act wrongdoing in U.S. District Court in St. Paul (see 2210130072) brought a nearly identical complaint (docket 0:22-cv-0255) against Goldman Sachs on the same day and in the same court. Marcus, the Goldman Sachs savings and loan subsidiary, “harassed" plaintiff Paul Michaud by repeatedly calling his cellphone “using a robodialer, an act strictly prohibited by state and federal law,” said his complaint. Marcus placed robocalls to Michaud at least 41 times after he “explicitly revoked” his consent to be called in November 2020, it said. Goldman Sachs didn’t comment Friday.

Kohl's “harassed” Hennepin County, Minnesota, resident Paul Michaud “by repeatedly calling his cell phone using a robodialer,” though that’s strictly prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Minnesota common law, alleged his complaint Thursday (docket 0:22-cv-02550) in U.S. District Court in St. Paul. “Despite the protections afforded by the TCPA, industry practices remain relatively unchanged,” said his complaint. “Robodialing continues to increase dramatically year-over-year and is estimated to now comprise half of all cell phone calls in the United States.” Kohl's routinely called Michaud on his cell phone attempting to collect on an account that had gone into default, said the suit. Michaud estimates Kohl's called his phone at least 39 times after he sent the retailer a letter in November 2020, “explicitly” revoking his consent to be called. Kohl's didn’t immediately comment.

The filing of a lawsuit against State Farm “does not substantiate the allegations within the complaint,” emailed a spokesperson Wednesday in response to a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action brought against the company Monday in U.S. District Court in Chicago (see 2210110009). “We’ve recently learned about the filing, and it is premature to comment at this time,” said the spokesperson. State Farm, via third parties acting on its behalf, made telemarketing calls “to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse,” despite FCC directives that sellers such as State Farm can’t avoid TCPA “liability” by outsourcing telemarketing to outside vendors, said the complaint.

Receiving an unsolicited telemarketing call alone doesn't constitute a violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, posted the Shipkevich law firm Wednesday. The U.S. District Court in Orlando held in a class-action suit in mid-September “that merely receiving an unsolicited marketing call is not enough to give a consumer standing to bring a claim” alleging an FTSA violation, it said. In the case of Davis v. Coast Dental, the plaintiffs claimed the defendant used computer software that automatically selected and dialed the class members’ phone numbers. But in reaching its conclusion, “the court reasoned that the allegation was insufficient to state a claim because it was a conclusory allegation that merely parroted the FTSA,” said the law firm. “The court opined that the plaintiff could have alleged various facts related to the transmission of calls in raising their claim. The court ultimately concluded that merely alleging that one received an unsolicited call is insufficient to state a claim.”

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved DirecTV's appeal of a lower court's granting class certification to a Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint against the company (see 2208020038), per a circuit court order entered Oct. 6 in docket 5:17-cv-00179 in U.S. District Court in Wheeling, West Virginia. The case stems from a December 2017 complaint in which consumers accused DirecTV and its authorized dealer representatives of TCPA wrongdoing. U.S. District Judge John Bailey signed an order Aug. 1 certifying the class as including all U.S. persons whose phone numbers were listed on the do-not-call registry and who received more than one telemarketing call within any 12-month period from DirecTV's vendor, AC1 Communications.

Pinellas County, Florida, resident Michelle Taylor filed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Friday against MobStub, alleging the e-commerce site inundated her for the past year with “dozens of telephonic sales calls.” The suit (docket 1:22-cv-08562), filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, also alleges Florida Telephone Solicitation Act violations because the New York-based MobStub “initiated and directed” calls into Florida, said the complaint. MobStub “engages in aggressive telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express written consent as required under the FTSA and with no regard to consumer rights under the TCPA,” it said. Taylor seeks statutory damages under federal and Florida law, plus an injunction requiring MobStub “to cease all telephonic sales calls made without valid consent under the FTSA,” said her complaint. MobStub didn’t comment Wednesday.