{"id":894,"date":"2022-10-18T10:38:49","date_gmt":"2022-10-18T14:38:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/?p=894"},"modified":"2022-10-18T10:38:49","modified_gmt":"2022-10-18T14:38:49","slug":"tcpa-consent-by-somebody-insufficient-to-avoid-liability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/2022\/10\/18\/tcpa-consent-by-somebody-insufficient-to-avoid-liability\/","title":{"rendered":"TCPA: Consent by \u201cSomebody\u201d Insufficient To Avoid Liability"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The \u201cintended recipient\u201d approach is no longer a viable argument when seeking to dismiss a TCPA claim at the initial pleading stage.\u00a0 <em>Blalack v. RentBeforeOwning.com<\/em>, 2022 WL 7320045 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022).<\/p>\n<p>In <em>Blalack<\/em>, Defendant is a real estate listing service which markets rent-to-own properties to consumers.\u00a0 Over a one year period, Defendant sent 108 telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff Jamie Blalack\u2019s cell phone to solicit her to purchase a subscription to Defendant\u2019s services.\u00a0 Screenshots of text messages read:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cThank You for Signing up for Property Alerts.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cGood morning, Harry. Search for properties in 74063 now.\u201d (Plaintiff\u2019s name is not Harry, and 74063 is not Plaintiff\u2019s zip code).<\/li>\n<li>\u201cReply HELP for HELP \u2013 STOP to stop.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Each text contains a link which led Plaintiff to Defendant\u2019s site to sign up for the service.\u00a0 Only some texts offer Plaintiff the opportunity to \u201copt out\u201d of future messages.<\/p>\n<p>Plaintiff asserts that she did not consent to receive the text messages or communications from Defendant and that she uses her cell phone primarily for residential purposes.\u00a0 Plaintiff registered her cell phone on the Federal Do Not Call Registry (\u201cDNC Registry\u201d).\u00a0 Plaintiff also sent Defendant a written cease and desist letter, but Defendant continued sending the texts for another month.<\/p>\n<p>In this lawsuit, Plaintiff asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (\u201cTCPA\u201d), 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 227(c) seeking $500 per text, treble damages of $1500 per text, and injunctive relief.<\/p>\n<p>Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the District Court denied these two arguments:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><u>Residential purposes<\/u>:\u00a0 Defendant asserted that Plaintiff did not allege in the Complaint that her cell phone was used for residential purposes.\u00a0 Yet, the District Court discussed:\n<ul>\n<li><u>2003 FCC Order<\/u>:\u00a0 In 2003, the Federal Communications Commission\u2019s \u00a0(\u201cFCC\u201d) Report and Order permits wireless subscribers \u00a0to participate in the DNC Registry.\u00a0 Commission&#8217;s Report and Order, CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 03-153, \u201cRules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991;\u201d 47 C.F.R. \u00a7 64.1200(e).<\/li>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\"><\/li>\n<li><u>DNC Registry Presumption<\/u>:\u00a0 In this Circuit, several district courts held that the allegations that a cell phone number is registered on the DNC\u00a0 Registry is sufficient to establish \u2013 at the pleading stage \u2013 the presumption that the number is a residential one.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><u>Prior express consent<\/u>:\u00a0 Defendant asserted that Plaintiff consented to receiving Defendant\u2019s text messages.\u00a0 There is no liability if the person making the telephone solicitations has obtained the subscriber\u2019s prior express invitation or permission which is evidenced by a signed written agreement between the consumer and seller which states that the consumer agrees to be contacted by this seller and includes the telephone number to which the calls may be placed.\u00a0 There is no liability if the call or message is to a person with whom the caller has an established business relationship.\u00a0 Defendant argued that Plaintiff did not elect to opt out of receiving the messages, even though some messages permitted Plaintiff to do so.\u00a0 Yet, the District Court discussed:\n<ul>\n<li><u>FCC Regulation<\/u>:\u00a0 To demonstrate \u201cprior express invitation or consent,\u201d the FCC Regulations require evidence of a \u201csigned, written agreement,\u201d and the screenshots do not: (1) constitute such a signed agreement, 47 C.F.R. \u00a7 64.1200(c)(ii); or (2) demonstrate a \u201cvoluntary two-way communication\u201d between Plaintiff and Defendant that constitutes and \u201cestablished business relationship,\u201d 47 C.F.R. \u00a7 64.1200(f)(5).<\/li>\n<li><u>Jamie, not Harry<\/u>: The text identifies the recipient by a different name \u2013 Harry.\u00a0 This allegation supports that Plaintiff did not provide her prior permission for the communications.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\"><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The District Court denied Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss and noted that there are fact questions that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss and are to be addressed in discovery.<\/p>\n<p>In sum, the \u201cintended recipient\u201d approach is no longer a viable argument when seeking to dismiss a TCPA claim at the initial pleading stage.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The \u201cintended recipient\u201d approach is no longer a viable argument when seeking to dismiss a TCPA claim at the initial pleading stage.\u00a0 Blalack v. RentBeforeOwning.com, 2022 WL 7320045 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022). In Blalack, Defendant is a real estate listing service which markets rent-to-own properties to consumers.\u00a0 Over a one year period, Defendant sent &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/2022\/10\/18\/tcpa-consent-by-somebody-insufficient-to-avoid-liability\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;TCPA: Consent by \u201cSomebody\u201d Insufficient To Avoid Liability&#8221;<\/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-894","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\/894","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=894"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=894"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}