{"id":854,"date":"2022-01-24T20:51:58","date_gmt":"2022-01-25T00:51:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/?p=854"},"modified":"2022-01-24T20:51:58","modified_gmt":"2022-01-25T00:51:58","slug":"tcpa-ruling-fax-inviting-recipient-to-take-a-survey-for-money-is-not-an-unsolicited-advertisement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/2022\/01\/24\/tcpa-ruling-fax-inviting-recipient-to-take-a-survey-for-money-is-not-an-unsolicited-advertisement\/","title":{"rendered":"TCPA Ruling: Fax Inviting Recipient to Take a Survey for Money Is Not An \u201cUnsolicited Advertisement\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Second Circuit ruled that an unsolicited faxed invitation to participate in a market research survey in exchange for money does not constitute an “unsolicited advertisement” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 227 (\u201cTCPA\u201d).\u00a0 Bruce Katz, M.D., P.C. v. Focus Forward, LLC<\/u>, No. 21-1224 (2nd<\/sup> Cir. Jan. 6, 2022).<\/p>\n

Plaintiff is a professional corporation that provides medical services.\u00a0 Defendant is a market research company.\u00a0 In 2019, Defendant sent Plaintiff two unsolicited faxes, addressed to the \u201cNurses\u201d and \u201cPractitioners,\u201d seeking participants in \u201cmarket research surveys\u201d and offering $150 to participate in a \u201ctelephone interview.\u201d<\/p>\n

Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging violations of the TCPA.\u00a0 The TCPA prohibits the use of \u201cany telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement.\u201d\u00a0 An \u201cunsolicited advertisement\u201d is defined by the statute as \u201cany material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person\u2019s prior express invitation or permission.\u201d<\/p>\n

The regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (\u201cFCC\u201d), implementing the TCPA, contain an identical definition of \u201cunsolicited advertisement.\u201d\u00a0 In 2006, the FCC promulgated a rule that construes the TCPA as specifically proscribing any faxed surveys that \u201cserve as a pretext to an advertisement.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Katz<\/u>, the Second Circuit reasoned that: (1) the two faxes \u201cplainly do not advertise the availability of any property, goods, or services\u201d and therefore \u201ccannot reasonably be construed\u201d as unlawful advertisements and (2) the word \u201cproperty\u201d does not appear to include money, as the word is used in the TCPA.<\/p>\n

The Second Circuit noted that its holding may not necessarily extend to all communications, including faxed surveys, offering the recipient both money and <\/em>services because such communications could incur liability under the TCPA depending on the specific content of the communication.<\/p>\n

The Second Circuit declined to adopt the reasoning of the Third Circuit in Fischbein v. Olson Research Group<\/u>, 959 F.3d 559 (3d Cir. 2020), which ruled that such faxes are <\/em>advertisements because the \u201coffer of payment in exchange for participation in a market survey is a commercial transaction, so a fax highlighting the availability of that transaction is an advertisement under the TCPA.\u201d\u00a0 Thus, the Second Circuit held that \u2013 based on the statutory text, legislative history, and FCC implementation of the TCPA \u2013 an invitation to participate in a survey, without more, is not an unsolicited advertisement under the TCPA.<\/p>\n

Lesson<\/strong>:\u00a0 An invitation to participate in a survey should be drafted to avoid offering \u201cproperty, goods, or services\u201d which may fall within the meaning of a \u201cunsolicited advertisement\u201d under the TCPA.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Second Circuit ruled that an unsolicited faxed invitation to participate in a market research survey in exchange for money does not constitute an “unsolicited advertisement” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 227 (\u201cTCPA\u201d).\u00a0 Bruce Katz, M.D., P.C. v. Focus Forward, LLC, No. 21-1224 (2nd Cir. Jan. 6, 2022). Plaintiff is a … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “TCPA Ruling: Fax Inviting Recipient to Take a Survey for Money Is Not An \u201cUnsolicited Advertisement\u201d”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":265,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[976],"class_list":["post-854","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-infotechtelecom"],"authors":[{"term_id":976,"user_id":265,"is_guest":0,"slug":"srwiggins","display_name":"Sheila Raftery Wiggins","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/17\/2021\/12\/wigginssheila-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/854","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\/265"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=854"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/854\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=854"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=854"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=854"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=854"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}