• Best CPA Networks
  • Best Cost-Per-Sale Affiliate Networks
  • Best Pay-Per-Call Networks
  • mThink Digital
  • Thought Leadership
    • White Papers
  • About
    • Content Marketing
    • Content Strategy
      • Web Content
      • Social Media Strategy
      • Webinars & Video
      • Thought Leadership
    • Performance Marketing
    • Portfolio
      • Revenue Performance
      • Accenture
      • Microsoft
      • Java Detour
      • Our Process
    • Contact Us

mThink

Blue Book Logo

BlueBook Logo

The Trusted Name in Performance Marketing

ROS Leaderboard

  • Home
  • Blue Book
    • About Blue Book
    • Blue Ribbon Panel
    • Interviews
    • Research Methodology
    • Back Issues
    • Advertising
      • Website Creative Specifications
      • Newsletter Creative Specifications
  • Best CPA Networks
  • Best Cost-Per-Sale Affiliate Networks
  • Best Pay-Per-Call Networks
  • Best European CPA Networks
  • Best CPA Networks for Affiliates
  • Best CPA Networks for Advertisers

TCPA Update:  Telemarketer Friendly ATDS and Single Text Rulings

September 20, 2019 by Richard B. Newman

A Florida federal court recently ruled in favor of the defendant when it held that dialing equipment must have the requisite “present capacity” to constitute an ATDS (Brown v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC)

Here, husband-and-wife plaintiffs claimed that defendant mortgage servicer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because it used an ATDS and an artificial or prerecorded voice.  The defendant disputed these allegations, also asserting that it had lawful, unrevoked consent.

Notably, the court granted summary judgment on the ATDS issue when it determined that defendant’s dialing equipment did not satisfy the statutory definition of ATDS as interpreted by the D.C. Circuit in ACA International.  In ACA International, the D.C. Circuit reviewed a 2015 FCC order that interpreted the TCPA’s prohibition against using automated dialing devices to make unsolicited calls to cellular telephones.  The court set aside two portions of the 2015 Order and confirmed two others.  In its decision, the court set aside: (i) the 2015 Order’s “expansive” definition of an ATDS; and (ii) the Order’s “one-call safe harbor” exemption for reassigned wireless phone numbers.

In Brown, the court summarized the undisputed evidence.  It found that defendant stores its borrowers’ data in a program called “RealServicing Loan Platform.”  It found that defendant identifies certain borrowers and creates call lists that are transferred to various software systems, and that defendant configures the manner in which calls are placed.

The court agreed with defendant that a dialing system must have the “present ability” to generate random or sequential numbers to meet the definition of an ATDS.  It did so, in part, by relying upon  Gonzalez v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (the definition of an ATDS would not include a predictive dialer that lacks the capacity to generate random or sequential telephone numbers and dial them; but it would include a predictive dialer that presently has that capacity).

Ultimately, the court agreed that defendant’s dialer was not capable of generating and dialing random or sequential numbers and was therefore, functionally, not an ATDS.

Also worth noting is that the Eleventh Circuit recently held that receiving a single unsolicited text message does not amount to the harm required to sustain a TCPA claim (Salcedo v. Hanna).  Here, plaintiff brought a TCPA claim against his former attorney after allegedly receiving a text message offering a discount on legal services.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit and the district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing.  The issue was appealed that the Eleventh Circuit reversed, creating a circuit split.

In short, the court observed that plaintiff alleged that receiving the single text message “caused [him] to waste his time answering or otherwise addressing the message”; that he and his phone here “unavailable for otherwise legitimate pursuits”; and that his privacy rights were invaded.

In a fit of logic, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that plaintiff failed to allege that the text cost him anything or that he had suffered tangible harm.  The court also considered the legislative history of the TCPA and noted that Congress’s intent in regarding text messages under the TCPA is “ambivalent at best.”  The court also disagreed with plaintiff’s privacy-related arguments, in part, because he was not at home when he received the texts.

The court did not believe that plaintiff suffered any harm at all, and no injury in fact.  The ruling stands in contrast to a recent Ninth Circuit and may very well have consequences on class certification in the Eleventh Circuit for plaintiffs that are unable to establish concrete harm.

In a time when TCPA plaintiffs’ attorneys, FTC lawyers and enforcement partners are cracking down on DNC violations, two wins for telemarketers.

Richard B. Newman is an FTC defense attorney at Hinch Newman LLP.  Follow him on LinkedIn @ FTC CID Attorney.

Informational purposes only. Not legal advice. Attorney advertising.

Related posts:

  1. Court Addresses Unconstitutional TCPA Damages and Who Can be Held Liable A company that managed the ownership rights of a film...
  2. Federal Court Holds TCPA Plaintiff Did Not Adequately Allege ATDS In Bader v. Navient Solutions, LLC (N.D. Ill. June 14,...
  3. FTC Warns Marketers to Take CIDs and Subpoenas Seriously The Federal Trade Commission obtains information through subpoenas and civil...
  4. FTC Signs Consumer Protection MOU With UK Regulator The Federal Trade Commission has signed a memorandum of understanding...

Filed Under: Blue Book, Revenue, Revenue Blog Tagged With: ATDS, FTC defense attorney, Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Search

ROS Col 2 Top

ROS Col 2 Mid

ROS Col 2 Low

Subscribe to our newsletter!

* indicates required

ROS Col 2 – 4 Misc

ROS Col 2 – 5 Misc

ROS Col 2 – 6 Misc

Recent Posts

  • FTC Reminds Lead Generators Not to Misuse Sensitive Consumer Data
  • Use of Certain Technologies to Track Web Session Data May Violate Law
  • How Financial Marketers Can Boost New Customer Growth on an Affiliate Model
  • Crypto Griftonomics And Influencers In Affiliate Marketing
  • Don’t forget about click-to-call: the most underrated vertical for social media traffic
  • Why The Speed of Relevance Can Help You Win
  • Why Should Marketers Invest In Pay Per Call?
  • CFPB Issues Warning About Contractual Gag Clauses and Consumer Reviews
  • New Blue Book Top 20 CPS Affiliate Network Results
  • FTC Rules With Civil Monetary Penalties for Deceptive Earnings Claims and Targeted Marketing May Be Forthcoming
  • New Blue Book Results: Top 20 CPA Affiliate Networks For 2022
  • FTC Rules With Civil Monetary Penalties for Deceptive Earnings Claims and Targeted Marketing May Be Forthcoming
  • Top 4 Ways To Make Your Call Campaigns More Successful
  • Perform[cb]’s New Mobile App For Partners Is A Game Changer
  • Shaping the Perfect Matchmaker for Content Creators

About mThink

mThink is a specialist digital marketing company based in San Francisco. We focus on media buying, Facebook marketing, direct response, social and mobile. In addition mThink produces the annual Blue Book Rankings of major performance marketing networks. Read More »

Baseboard

Copyright ©2022 · mThink. All rights reserved.
3053 Fillmore Street, Suite 325 | (415) 787-0250
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy