for TCPA Litigation November 18, 2014 Todays Presenters Monica S. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Have a Phone? Have a Customer? Your Company May Be a Target for TCPA Litigation

November 18, 2014

2

squirepattonboggs.com

Amy L. Brown Leader – Class Action & Multijurisdictional Practice Washington DC +1 202 626 6707 amy.brown@squirepb.com Philip M. Oliss Leader – Cleveland Litigation Team Cleveland, OH +1 216 479 8448 philip.oliss@squirepb.com Monica S. Desai Partner, Communications Washington DC +1 202 457 7535 monica.desai@squirepb.com Paul Besozzi Partner, Communications Washington DC +1 202 457 5292 paul.besozzi@squirepb.com

Today’s Presenters

Background on the TCPA

4

squirepattonboggs.com

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)

• The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was enacted in 1991 to

stop harassing and unwanted phone calls to consumers.

• The TCPA imposes restrictions on calls to cellphones using an “automatic

telephone dialing system” (ATDS) or artificial or prerecorded voice message, and places certain restrictions on residential calls.

• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the Federal agency in

charge of implementing the TCPA.

• There has been a sharp increase in the number of lawsuits alleging violations
• f the TCPA.
• 1714 TCPA lawsuits filed year-to-date
• 70% year over year increases in lawsuits
• Covered entities must be vigilant to avoid liability and manage risk in this

environment.

5

squirepattonboggs.com

Key Areas of Controversy

• More than 30 petitions pending at the FCC – clarification and rulemaking

requests on a wide range of issues:

• Calls related to participation in clinical trials
• Messages related to fraud alerts
• Clarification re opting into a campaign
• Whether certain software triggers the TCPA
• Reassigned numbers
• KEY ISSUES WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY
• What dialing systems are subject to the TCPA?
• What constitutes prior express consent?

6

squirepattonboggs.com

TCPA Statutory Language

The TCPA prohibits certain calls made to wireless numbers using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Specifically, it provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States— to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice … to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call … 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1).

7

squirepattonboggs.com

What is an Autodialer

• Under the TCPA, an ATDS is “equipment which has the capacity –
• to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or

sequential number generator; AND

• to dial such numbers.”
• 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1)(emphasis added).
• The FCC has consistently stated that the basic function of an autodialer is “the

capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.”

• Under the TCPA, it is the calling system’s “capacity” that is relevant to an

autodialer determination. However, “capacity” is not defined in the statute, nor in the FCC’s rules. (present vs. future ability).

8

squirepattonboggs.com

• What is capacity?
• Are “predictive dialers” automatically an ATDS under the statute?
• What about “preview dialers”?

Key Areas of Controversy

9

squirepattonboggs.com

The TCPA provides a defense to calls made to wireless numbers using an ATDS

• r an artificial or prerecorded voice, if the call is made with the prior express

consent of the called party:

It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice . . . to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1).

TCPA Statutory Language

10

squirepattonboggs.com

• "Called Party" is not defined under the TCPA.
• In the case of reassigned numbers, this is highly controversial, and hotly

litigated.

• Federal courts have come up with four different interpretations of the term.
• Four FCC petitions on this issue alone, and numerous comments.

Who is the “Called Party”?

11

squirepattonboggs.com

• Opt out notices for facsimile advertisements must meet each of the following

elements:

• Located on the first page of the fax advertisement
• Clear and conspicuous
• State that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any future ads

and that failure to comply within 30 days, with such a request is unlawful

• Contain a domestic contact telephone number and a fax number for the recipient to

transmit an opt-out request

• Six-month window for petitioners to comply (until April 30, 2015). Substantial

compliance is not sufficient

• Other similarly situated parties may seek waivers, and are encouraged to do so

by April 15

October 30, 2014: FCC Fax Advertisements Order

Prior Express Written Consent for Telemarketing

13

squirepattonboggs.com

• Beginning October 16, 2013, the FCC required companies to obtain “prior

express written consent” before making a telemarketing call to a wireless number using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, or to a residential line using an artificial or prerecorded voice.

• Under these rules, callers will no longer be able to rely on an established

business relationship (EBR) to avoid obtaining consent.

• Note: EBR previously applied to calls to residential lines but had never applied

to calls to wireless numbers.

TCPA Rules – Prior Express Written Consent

14

squirepattonboggs.com

• Wireless and Residential Calls: The new written consent rules apply to

wireless and landline telemarketing calls to residential customers.

• Voice Calls and Text Messages: Because the FCC and certain courts

consider text messages to be “calls” under the TCPA, the rules also apply equally to calls and texts.

Applicability

15

squirepattonboggs.com

• The rules do NOT change requirements for non-telemarketing, informational

calls.

• Purely informational, non-telemarketing calls to residential lines: No consent

needed.

• Purely informational, non-telemarketing calls to wireless lines: Need either

prior oral or written consent.

• Examples of “informational calls”: debt collection calls, airline notification

calls, bank account fraud alerts, school and university notifications, research

• r survey calls, and wireless usage notifications.

Exemption for Prerecorded Informational Calls

COMPLIANCE: Prior Express Written Consent and Other TCPA Requirements

17

squirepattonboggs.com

Required Elements of “Prior Express Written Consent”:

• There must be a written agreement,
• Signed by the person receiving the call,
• With a “clear and conspicuous disclosure” of consequences of consent
• Unambiguously authorizes the seller to make telemarketing calls using an

automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.

• Includes the telephone number to which the authorization pertains.
• Notes that the person is not required to sign the agreement as a condition of

purchasing any property, goods or services.

What Does “Prior Express Written Consent” Mean?

18

squirepattonboggs.com

• The signature on the written consent may be electronic or digital, as well as in

ink.

• For example a person may “sign” the consent via a website form, email,

keypad touch, or voice recording.

What Does “Signed” Mean?

19

squirepattonboggs.com

• “Clear and conspicuous disclosure” means a separate and

distinguishable notice that a reasonable consumer would see and understand.

• Features of a “clear and conspicuous disclosure”:
• the requisite disclosure should be printed in a type size that a consumer can

readily notice and understand;

• it should contrast with the background of the rest of the document;
• it should not be buried on the back or bottom of the document; and
• it should not be inserted with unrelated information that a person would think

is unimportant to read.

What Constitutes “Clear and Conspicuous Disclosure?”

20

squirepattonboggs.com

All of the information required to establish unambiguous prior express written consent by a person can be disclosed using any method through which you can

• btain and keep a record of that consent, e.g., in an online call to action.

Where Should a Disclosure be Made?

21

squirepattonboggs.com

Online Call to Action (require an affirmative check mark): I authorize [Seller and its agents and affiliates] to call or text me with

• ffers and other advertisements on [301-444-1234]. I understand and

agree that these promotions may be delivered through use of automated technology, automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. I understand that I am not required to sign this agreement, and am not required to agree to the receipt of such calls or text messages, as a condition of purchasing any property, goods or services.

Sample Compliant Disclosure

22

squirepattonboggs.com

• If any question regarding consent arises, the burden is on the seller to

demonstrate that the requisite “clear and conspicuous disclosure” was provided and that unambiguous consent from the authorizing party was

• btained.

Burden is on the Seller

23

squirepattonboggs.com

• Companies should retain evidence of consent in case of potential compliance

challenges.

• In light of recent case law discussing the applicable statute of limitations,

retention for at least four years would be prudent.

• To ensure that sellers will be able to demonstrate compliance if challenged,

these requirements should be built into document retention policies and required of any third party telemarketing service providers using an ATDS or artificial or prerecorded voice.

Evidence of Written Consent

TCPA Litigation

25

squirepattonboggs.com

TCPA Cases filed September 2014

Tarizzo v. American Leisure Group, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-06850 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 2, 2014); Ranekouhi v. American Medical Collection Agency aka Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01404 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 2, 2014); Cruz v. I.Q. Data International, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-03982 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 2, 2014); Barnes v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01941 (N.D. Ohio, filed Sept. 2, 2014); Violette Espinoza v. Caribbean Cruise Line Inc et al, Case No. 5:14-cv-01814 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 3, 2014); Luster v. First Premier Bank, Case No. 1:14-cv-02844 (N.D. Ga., filed Sept. 3, 2014); Michelle Mock v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. et al, Case No. 8:14-cv-01407 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 3, 2014); Carls v. Law Office of Joe Pezzuto LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01930 (D. Ariz., filed Sept. 3, 2014); Shields v. Ultimate Vacation Group LLC d/b/a Royal Bahamas Cruise Line, Case No. 3:14-cv-00285 (S.D. Tex., filed Sept. 3, 2014); Martin v. DirecTV, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-06864 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 3, 2014); Gregory v. Integrity Solution Services, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-01827 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 4, 2014); Goetz v. Quality Resources, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-01099 (N.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 5, 2014); ORTIZ v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-05095 (E.D. Pa., filed

• Sept. 5, 2014); Doug Hauck v. Culver Capital Group, Inc. et al, Case No. 8:14-cv-01442 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 8,

2014); Tami Dube v. Student Loan Services Managers et al, Case No. 8:14-cv-01440 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 8, 2014); Alan L. Laub, DDS, Inc. v. Den-Mat Holdings, LLC et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-07004 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 8, 2014); Geismann, et al. v. American HomePatient, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-01538 (E.D. Mo., filed Sept. 8, 2014); Moore v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-01542 (E.D. Mo., filed Sept. 9, 2014); Luna v. MediaFriends, Inc. dba Haywire Wireless, Case No. 2:14-cv-07027 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 9, 2014); Spector v. ADVANCED MARKETING & PROCESSING, INC. dba PRECISION AUTO PROTECTION, a Florida Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-07050 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 9, 2014); Shoemaker v. One on One Marketing, LLC et al, Case

• No. 4:14-cv-00233 (N.D. Ga., filed Sept. 11, 2014); Kelly v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. (S.D. Ind. 1:14-cv-

01499, filed Sept. 12, 2014)

26

squirepattonboggs.com

Dean v. Synchrony Bank F/K/A GE Capital Retail Bank (S.D. Ind. 2:14-cv-00279, filed Sept. 12, 2014); Bonner et

• al. v. Capital One Bank USA N.A. et al. (E.D. Pa. 5:14-cv-05278, Sept. 15, 2014); HUSPON v. GLOBAL TEL-LINK

CORPORATION, Case No. 1:14-cv-01514 (S.D. Ind., filed Sept. 16, 2014); Benenati v. Westlake Financial, Case

• No. 2:14-cv-07240 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 16, 2014); Mayfield v. First Premier Bank et al, Case No. 5:14-cv-02062

(N.D. Ohio, filed Sept. 16, 2014); Collier v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 2:14-cv-07216 (C.D. Cal., filed

• Sept. 16, 2014); Goins v. Verizon Wireless et al, Case No. 0:14-cv-03677 (D.S.C., filed Sept. 17, 2014); Law

Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. v. Nationwide Open Diagnostics, LLC dba Nationwide MRI, Case No. 2:14-cv- 07266 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 17, 2014); Abea v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-07257 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 17, 2014); Freeman v. Alliance Health Networks, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-07255 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 17, 2014); Goode v. DISH Network LLC et al, Case No. 7:14-cv-03674 (D.S.C., filed Sept. 17, 2014); Tsai v. Cellco Partnership et al, Case No. 3:14-cv-04190 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 17, 2014); Orea v. Arbitron, Inc., Case No. 3:14- cv-04235 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 18, 2014); Fitzhenry v. Independent Order of Foresters, The et al, Case No. 2:14- cv-03690 (D.S.C., filed Sept. 18, 2014); Williams v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01372 (D. Conn., filed Sept. 18, 2014); Agazanof v. Five Four Group, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-07313 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 18, 2014); Johnson et al v. Capital One Bank USA NA, Case No. 1:14-cv-03693 (D.S.C., filed Sept. 18, 2014); Alexander Braurman v. AGR Group Inc, Case No. 8:14-cv-01519 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 19, 2014); Ucmakli v. Bank Of America Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-07340 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 19, 2014); Anderson v. American Credit Acceptance Corporation et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-03032 (N.D. Ga., filed Sept. 22, 2014); Hernandez v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-01536 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 23, 2014); Lawson v. Career Specialists, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-07473 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 24, 2014); Burton v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 04362 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 26, 2014); Smith v. Piedmont Healthcare, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-03103 (N.D. Ga., filed Sept. 26, 2014); Burton v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04362 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 26, 2014); Cortinas v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-07542 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 29, 2014)

TCPA Cases filed September 2014

27

squirepattonboggs.com

Milsk v. Travel Options, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-07676 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 2, 2014); Craver v. Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-02700 (D. Colo., filed Oct. 2, 2014); Fitzhenry v. Lily Management and Marketing Company LLC et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-03866 (D.S.C., filed Oct. 3, 2014); Brunier v. Student Acceptance Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-02044 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 3, 2014); Keith Bunch Associates, LLC v. LA-Z-BOY,

• INC. et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-00850 (M.D.N.C., filed Oct. 7, 2014); Harper v. Capital One Financial Corporation,

Case No. 1:14-cv-04488 (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 7, 2014); Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc. v. Lordex, Inc. et al, Case

• No. 2:14-cv-07771 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 7, 2014); Harper v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-

04488 (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 7, 2014); Roicki v. Cenlar F.S.B. et al, Case No. 5:14-cv-00876 (W.D. Tex., filed Oct. 7, 2014); Roicki v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Case No. 5:14-cv-00875 (W.D. Tex., filed Oct. 7, 2014); Kim v. Cellco Partnership, Case No. 1:14-cv-00312 (N.D. Ind., filed Oct. 7, 2014); Soots v. Hyundai Motor America d/b/a Hyundai Motor Finance, Case No. 8:14-cv-01621 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 7, 2014); Freyja v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-07831 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 8, 2014); Richie v. Durham and Durham LLP, Case No. 2:14-cv- 00368 (N.D. Ind., filed Oct. 8, 2014); Eicher v. GE Capital Bank, Case No. 5:14-cv-02101 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 10, 2014); Macatangay v. Regional Acceptance Corporation et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-02253 (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 10, 2014); Blotzer v. Validation Technologies, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01654 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 11, 2014); Naddaf v. DriveTime Automotive Group Incorporated et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-02266 (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 14, 2014); Simon, DC

• v. RadNet, Management Inc. et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-07996 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 15, 2014); Coerver v. Linktech

Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-07972 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 15, 2014); IN RE: Life Time Fitness, Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation, Case No. 0:14-md-02564 (D. Minn., filed Oct. 15, 2014); Purcell v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02258 (C.D. Ill., filed Oct. 15, 2014); Kristensen v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:14-cv-07963 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 15, 2014); Brown v. Midwest Recovery Systems, LLC et al, Case

• No. 4:14-cv-01757 (E.D. Mo., filed Oct. 16, 2014); Santander Consumer USA Inc. et al, Case No. 8:14-cv-01677

(C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 16, 2014); Tauro vs Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01528 (D. Conn., filed

• Oct. 16, 2014); Perry v. Capital One et al, Case No. 4:14-cv-02413 (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 16, 2014); Vanderpoel v.

DriveTime Automotive Group Incorporated et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-02295 (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 16, 2014)

TCPA Cases filed October 2014

28

squirepattonboggs.com

Justin Barshaw v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-08080 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 17, 2014); Blankenship v. Medicredit, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-02138 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 17, 2014); Barshaw v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-02137 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 17, 2014); Konovalov v. Revenue Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-02831 (D. Colo., filed Oct. 17, 2014); Perry v. Navient Solutions Incorporated et al, Case No. 4:14-cv-02420 (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 20, 2014); Dietz v. Midland Credit Management Inc, Case No. 3:14-cv-05837 (W.D. Wash., filed Oct. 21, 2014); Hebbe v. Northcentral University Incorporated et al, Case No. 3:14-cv-08202 (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 21, 2014); Ehlinger v. CoolTrade, Inc. et al, Case No. 4:14-cv-02998 (S.D. Tex., filed Oct. 21, 2014); Byrd v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08226 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 23, 2014); Jones

• v. American Credit Acceptance Corporation et al, Case No. 4:14-cv-04130 (D.S.C., filed Oct. 23, 2014); Fox v.

Paypal, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08264 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 24, 2014); Doyle v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-00679 (E.D. Tex., filed Oct. 24, 2014); Barrientos v. Optio Solutions LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-08287 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 24, 2014); Shahriar Noorparvar v. Paypal, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08280 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 24, 2014); Robbins v. Affiliate Masters LLC et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-08307 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 27, 2014); Pecora v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-04751 (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 27, 2014); Latz v. Bridgepoint Education d/b/a Ashford University et al, Case No. 3:14-cv-02386 (N.D. Ohio, filed Oct. 27, 2014); Johnson et al v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 1:14-cv-04201 (D.S.C., filed Oct. 28, 2014); Whaley v. Seas & Associates LLC, Case

• No. 2:14-cv-02394 (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 28, 2014); Mcwilliams vs. CitiFinancial Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01001 (E.D.

Tex., filed Oct. 28, 2014); Willis v. Degreesearch, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-08396 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 29, 2014); Robinson v. Convergent Outsourcing, Case No. 3:14-cv-01606 (D. Conn., filed Oct. 29, 2014); Gonzalez v. Wilshire Consumer Credit, Case No. 5:14-cv-02224 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 29, 2014); Calderon v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08393 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 29, 2014); Semnar et al, Case No. 8:14-cv-01733 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 29, 2014); Zaenger v. Weston Distance Learning d/b/a One and One Marketing, Case No. 1:14-cv- 02932 (D. Conn., filed Oct. 29, 2014); Abouriche v. FMA Alliance, Ltd., Case No. 8:14-cv-01742 (C.D. Cal., filed

• Oct. 30, 2014); Hunter v. AR STRAT et al, Case No. 5:14-cv-02232 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 30, 2014); Garcia-

Ordonez v. Viking Client Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08425 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 30, 2014)

TCPA Cases filed October 2014

29

squirepattonboggs.com

Pfening v. Go Green Education, Case No. 2:14-cv-08422 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 30, 2014); Lawson v. NYSA Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-08401 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 30, 2014); Blotzer v. Paychex, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv- 01736 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 30, 2014); VanHoosier v. Synchrony Bank f/k/a GE Capital Retail Bank et al, Case No. 3:14-cv-02425 (N.D. Ohio, filed Oct. 31, 2014); Moore v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv- 02424 (N.D. Ohio, filed Oct. 31, 2014); Torrez v. Synchrony Bank f/k/a GE Capital Retail Bank, Case No. 1:14-cv- 02964 (D. Conn., filed Oct. 31, 2014); Ashby v. Westlake Financial, Case No. 2:14-cv-08455 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 31, 2014); Navarro v. SCE Federal Credit Union, Case No. 2:14-cv-08493 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 31, 2014); Ortiz v. CMRE Financial Services Incorporated, Case No. 2:14-cv-02437 (D. Ariz., filed Nov. 3, 2014); Lewis v. Casting360, LLC et al, Case No. 3:14-cv-04860 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 3, 2014); Wilson v. Synchrony Bank f/k/a GE Capital Retail Bank, Case No. 4:14-cv-01850 (E.D. Mo., filed Nov. 3, 2014); Lewis v. Casting360, LLC et al, Case

• No. 4:14-cv-04860 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 3, 2014); Hemphill v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 2:14-cv-02448 (D.

Ariz., filed Nov. 4, 2014); Neuer v. World Class Technology Corporation d/b/a Ortho Classic, Case No. 2:14-cv- 02559 (D. Kan., filed Nov. 4, 2014); Dutro v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04881 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 4, 2014); Wynne v. Ally Financial, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-03147 (S.D. Tex., filed Nov. 4, 2014); Hofer v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 4:14-cv-01865 (E.D. Mo., filed Nov. 4, 2014); Doyley v. Synchrony Bank f/k/a GE Capital Retail Bank, Case No. 4:14-cv-03143 (S.D. Tex., filed Nov. 4, 2014); Singh v. Titan Fitness Holdings, LLC dba Fitness Connection, Case No. 4:14-cv-03141 (S.D. Tex., filed Nov. 4, 2014); Dutro v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-04881 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 4, 2014); Kleiman v. Comcast Holdings Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02998 (D. Colo., filed Nov. 5, 2014); Langhorne v. Dish Network, L.L.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-03600 (N.D. Ga., filed Nov. 7, 2014); Barron's Outfitters Inc v. Big Hairy Dog Information Systems et al, Case No. 3:14-cv-04335 (D.S.C., filed

• Nov. 7, 2014); Redden v. Monitronics International, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-27757 (S.D.W. Va., filed Nov. 7, 2014);

Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc. v. Spendwell Health, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-08728 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 10, 2014); Couser v. Allied Interstate, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-02311 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 11, 2014); Neuer v. Futuredontics, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02569 (D. Kan., filed Nov. 11, 2014)

TCPA Cases Filed October 2014 through November 12, 2014

30

squirepattonboggs.com

Across Industries

• Financial Services
• Hospitals/Health Care Systems
• Colleges/University Systems
• Consumer Products Manufacturers
• Restaurants
• Sports Teams
• Social Networking Sites
• Apparel Manufacturers
• Pharmacies
• Hotels and Resorts
• Airlines
• Big Box Retailers
• Cruise Lines

31

squirepattonboggs.com

It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person

• utside the United States if the recipient is within the United States —

to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice … to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call …

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1).

Across Borders

32

squirepattonboggs.com

• Uncapped statutory damages (untethered to any actual injury)
• Statutory damages available for each call or text ($500 – $1500 per violation)
• Require little or no pre-suit investigation
• Recent Notable Settlements
• Capital One – $75MM
• AT&T – $45MM
• HSBC – $40MM
• Chase Bank USA – $34MM
• Bank of America – $32MM

Explosion of TCPA Class Actions

33

squirepattonboggs.com

• Attacking the Pleadings
• Failure to Plead Phone Number
• Failure to Adequately Plead ATDS
• Litigating Consent
• Consent is an Affirmative Defense/Burden of Proof on the Defendant
• No Good Faith Exception
• Common Law Concepts of Consent and Revocation
• Summary Judgment
• Some Courts grant Summary Judgment on Definition of ATDS
• Expert Testimony on what constitutes ATDS

Defending Against TCPA Claims

34

squirepattonboggs.com

• Is the class ascertainable?
• Is it a fail-safe class?
• Is there numerosity?
• Cabrera v. Government Employees Ins. Co., Case No. 12-CV-61390 (S.D.

Fla.)

• Do automated calls/faxes/texts satisfy commonality? Predominance?
• Do statutory damages obviate the need to establish injury and causation?
• Is the named plaintiff’s claim typical of the proposed class?
• Is the named plaintiff an adequate class representative?
• Labou v. Cellco Partnership, Case No. 13-cv-00844 (E.D. Cal.)
• Can consent be proven on a class-wide basis?

Are TCPA Classes Being Certified?

35

squirepattonboggs.com

Compare cases granting class certification:

• Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., 707 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2012)
• Chapman v. Wagener Equities, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16866 (N.D. Ill.
• Feb. 11, 2014)

With cases denying class certification:

• Edwards v. Mobile Messgrs. Am., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163950 (N.D.
• Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)
• Balthazor v. Central Credit Servs., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182275 (S.D. Fla.
• Dec. 27, 2012)

Can Consent be Proven on Classwide Basis?

36

squirepattonboggs.com

• Rule 68 Offers of Judgment
• “You cannot persist in suing after you’ve won.” Greisz v. Household Bank,

N.A., 176 F.3d 1012, 1015 (7th Cir. 1999) (Posner, J.)

• Offers of Judgment as a TCPA Defense Strategy
• Relief Sought
• Circuit Split

Offers of Judgment

37

squirepattonboggs.com

In re DISH Network, LLC, 28 F.C.C. Rcrd. 6574 (2013)

• Declaratory Ruling
• Vicarious Liability under Federal Common Law Principles of Agency:
• Formal Agency
• Apparent Authority
• Ratification

FCC Weighs In On Vicarious Liability

38

squirepattonboggs.com

Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., No. 13-55486 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2014 )

• Adopts FCC’s approach.
• “[A] defendant may be held vicariously liable for TCPA violations where the

plaintiff establishes an agency relationship, as defined by federal common law, between the defendant and a third-party caller.”

• Vicarious liability is not limited to merchants; applies to third-party marketing

consultants.

Decisions on Vicarious Liability in the Wake of FCC Ruling

39

squirepattonboggs.com

• Motions to Dismiss – plausible allegations of agency:
• Hartley-Culp v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145851

(M.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2014)

• Kristensen v. Credit Payment Servs., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41696 (D. Ne.

March 26, 2014)

• Motions for Summary Judgment – fact specific inquiry:
• Granted: Keating v. Peterson’s Nelnet, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64920

(N.D. Ohio May 12, 2014)

• Denied: The Siding & Insulation Co. v. Combined Ins. Grp., Ltd., 2014 U.S.
• Dist. LEXIS 54056 (N.D. Ohio. April 17, 2014)

Decisions on Vicarious Liability in the Wake of FCC Ruling

40

squirepattonboggs.com

TCPA Compliance/Risk Management Tips

• 1. Understand TCPA law and regulatory parameters and similar state statutes.
• 2. Monitor TCPA developments in jurisdictions where your company does

business.

• 3. Evaluate the technologies your company uses to communicate with

customers.

• 4. Review your prior express written consent forms. Are they FCC compliant?
• 5. Review your prior express oral consent procedures. Are they clear and

unambiguous?

• 6. Scrupulously adhere to the scope of consent given.
• 7. Retain all consent records and revocation thereof, e.g., wireless numbers.
• 8. Scrub for residential telephone numbers that are registered on the Federal Do

Not Call list.

• 9. Verify the type of phones in consumer contact lists and the current subscriber

assigned to each phone number.

41

squirepattonboggs.com

TCPA Compliance/Risk Management Tips

10.Review your third-party telemarketer agreements to ensure maximum protection against potential vicarious liability. 11.Understand the scope of your insurance coverage for commercial liability for TCPA and breach of privacy-related claims. 12.Develop and implement employee TCPA training programs. Update annually. 13.Understand TCPA rules regarding unsolicited fax advertisements, if you communicate with customers by facsimile. 14.Obtain third-party TCPA representations and warranties. 15.Make sure you are using a broad arbitration agreement with a class action waiver.

42

squirepattonboggs.com

Robin Hallagan Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Legal Training Manager +1 216 479 8115 robin.hallagan@squirepb.com

CLE Credit or Questions

43

squirepattonboggs.com

Amy L. Brown Leader - Class Action & Multijurisdictional Practice Washington DC +1 202 626 6707 amy.brown@squirepb.com Philip M. Oliss Leader – Cleveland Litigation Team Cleveland, OH +1 216 479 8448 philip.oliss@squirepb.com Monica S. Desai Partner, Communications Washington DC +1 202 457 7535 monica.desai@squirepb.com Paul Besozzi Partner, Communications Washington DC +1 202 457 5292 paul.besozzi@squirepb.com

Thank You

44

squirepattonboggs.com

Worldwide Locations

Abu Dhabi Beijing Berlin Birmingham Bogotá+ Bratislava Brussels Bucharest+ Budapest Buenos Aires+ Caracas+ Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Denver Doha Dubai Frankfurt Hong Kong Houston Jakarta+ Kyiv La Paz+ Leeds Lima+ London Los Angeles Madrid Manchester Miami Moscow New York Northern Virginia Palo Alto Panamá+ Paris Perth Phoenix Prague Riyadh San Francisco Santiago+ Santo Domingo Seoul Shanghai Singapore Sydney Tampa Tokyo Warsaw Washington DC West Palm Beach

+Independent Network Firm