{"id":847,"date":"2021-12-13T16:57:51","date_gmt":"2021-12-13T20:57:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/?p=847"},"modified":"2021-12-13T16:57:51","modified_gmt":"2021-12-13T20:57:51","slug":"tcpa-ruling-text-asking-patient-to-rate-the-doctor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/2021\/12\/13\/tcpa-ruling-text-asking-patient-to-rate-the-doctor\/","title":{"rendered":"TCPA Ruling: Text Asking Patient To Rate The Doctor"},"content":{"rendered":"

By\u00a0Sheila Raftery Wiggins<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

A California federal court ruled that a text asking a patient to rate the doctor \u2013 sent minutes after the examination by a company that contracts with the health care provider to send Patient Satisfaction Surveys \u2013 does not alone satisfy an inference that the text was sent by an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (\u201cATDS\u201d) within the definition of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 227 (\u201cTCPA\u201d).\u00a0 <\/p>\n

The text stated: \u201cHello, you recently visited Larry Dodge, M.D.\u00a0 Please provide your rating.\u00a0 https:\/\/x.rater8.com\/umg3sy.\u00a0 To unsubscribe: https:\/\/x.rater8.com\/ujhrq7.\u201d\u00a0 The plaintiff-patient alleged that defendant\u2019s computer system obtains patient appointment information in order to process these types of text messages.\u00a0 The plaintiff-patient alleged facts to support an inference that the text message was sent by an ATDS including that: (1) the nature of the message \u2013 asking for a rating for a doctor \u2013 was generic or promotional, (2) the ability to respond to the text \u2013 by hitting an \u201cunsubscribe\u201d link \u2013 was characteristic of an ADTS, and (3) the message was sent from a SMS short code, suggesting an ATDS.<\/p>\n

Under the TCPA, it is unlawful for any person to make any call using an ATDS to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service.\u00a0 To state a claim in a lawsuit, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that: (1) defendant called or texted a cellular telephone number, (2) using an ATDS, and (3) without the recipient\u2019s prior express consent.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Facebook v. Duguid<\/em>, 141 S. St. 1163 (2021), that to qualify as an ATDS, a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential generator or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.\u00a0 Thus, a claim under Section 227(b) of the TCPA hinges on whether the equipment used a random or sequential number generator.<\/p>\n

Applying the Supreme Court\u2019s Duguid<\/em> analysis, the California federal court ruled that: (1) the nature of this solitary text and the relationship between the parties indicate the text was not sent using an ATDS and (2) the allegations indicate that the plaintiff-patient was targeted with the single text message.\u00a0 Wilson v. Rater8, LLC, et al.<\/em>, No. 20-cv-1515, 2021 WL 4865930 (Oct. 18, 2021). \u00a0The plaintiff-patient\u2019s claims were dismissed.\u00a0 This case is consistent with a growing line of decisions addressing the ATDS pleading requirements after the Supreme Court\u2019s Duguid<\/em> decision.<\/p>\n

Lesson<\/strong>: Expect more cases testing the parameters of what constitutes an ATDS, especially as technology continues to evolve.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By\u00a0Sheila Raftery Wiggins A California federal court ruled that a text asking a patient to rate the doctor \u2013 sent minutes after the examination by a company that contracts with the health care provider to send Patient Satisfaction Surveys \u2013 does not alone satisfy an inference that the text was sent by an Automatic Telephone … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “TCPA Ruling: Text Asking Patient To Rate The Doctor”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[975,974,169,971,957,973],"ppma_author":[878],"class_list":["post-847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-infotechtelecom","tag-atds","tag-automatic-telephone-dialing-system","tag-california","tag-sheila-raftery-wiggins","tag-tcpa","tag-telephone-consumer-protection-act"],"authors":[{"term_id":878,"user_id":6,"is_guest":0,"slug":"duanemorris3","display_name":"Duane Morris","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/843ff6e7a8fe5fc92109b47a45f34b6cf0ea499e6e788db23456c838b0ae6747?s=96&d=blank&r=g","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/847","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=847"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/847\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=847"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}