Nearly two years after a divided three-three judge panel held that federal law prohibits “incentive payments” to named class representatives (see our previous blog post here), the Eleventh Circuit denied a petition to rehear that case en banc. Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 21455 (11th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022). The denial…
Tag: Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
Eleventh Circuit Bans Incentive Payments to Lead Plaintiffs in Class Actions
In what appears to be a first, the Eleventh Circuit recently held that federal law prohibits so-called “incentive payments” to class representatives, even as part of an agreed settlement. The court acknowledged that it was forging a new path in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244, 1248–49 (11th Cir. 2020)—identifying errors that it…
Would-Be TCPA Plaintiff Cannot Unilaterally Revoke Contractual Consent to be Called
The Eleventh Circuit has joined the Second in holding that consent to be called using an autodialer and/or prerecorded messages, given as part of a contract, cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. Medley v. DISH Network, LLC, 2020 WL 2092594 (11th Cir. May 1, 2020). Linda Medley entered into a 24-month agreement with DISH Network to receive…
Eleventh Circuit Holds That TCPA’s Definition of “Automatic Telephone Dialing System” Requires Use of Random or Sequential Number Generator
Addressing a question that has divided courts in a decision that will substantially affect the scope of liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), the Eleventh Circuit has held that equipment is not an “automatic telephone dialing system” under the TCPA unless the equipment employs random or sequential number generation and requires no human…
Eleventh Circuit Splits with Ninth in Holding that Recipient of a Single Unsolicited Text Message Lacks Standing to Assert a TCPA Claim
John Salcedo received a single unsolicited text message from the firm of his former lawyer, offering a discount on future services. Salcedo sued the lawyer and the law firm, seeking statutory and treble damages for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). In his complaint, Salcedo alleged that the text message caused him…
Hotels Can’t Complain About Solicited Faxes, Even When They Don’t Require an Opt-Out Notice
The Eleventh Circuit was asked in Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Safemark Systems, LP, 2019 WL 3384191 (11th Cir. July 26, 2019), to decide whether a fax recipient provided prior express permission to receive faxes from a sender under the TCPA and, if so, whether the faxes needed to contain opt-out notices under an agency regulation. …
Supreme Court to Consider TCPA Circuit Split on Interpretation of “Advertisement”
The Supreme Court will address a circuit split over the interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s provision imposing liability for sending unsolicited advertisements. PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., No. 17-1705, 2018 WL 3127423 (U.S. Nov. 13, 2018). The majority view—held by the Eleventh Circuit—is that an unsolicited fax is only…
Rival Class Counsel Battle Over Settlement
An unseemly squabble between rival class-action firms drew the attention of the Eleventh Circuit in Technology Training Associates, Inc. v. Buccaneers Ltd. Partnership, 2017 WL 4819371 (11th Cir. Oct. 26, 2017). The court remanded the case for further combat over approval of an approximately $20 million class action settlement in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act…
Don’t Call Me Maybe—TCPA Consent Can Be Partially Revoked
The Eleventh Circuit has held that the TCPA permits a consumer to partially revoke her consent to be called. Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank, 2017 WL 3429381 (11th Cir. Aug. 10, 2017). Emily Schweitzer had a past-due credit card account with Comenity Bank. The bank called her cell phone (the number which she had provided in…
No TCPA Liability for Faxes That Do Not Market a Product
“Unsolicited advertisements” prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) do not include faxes that merely facilitate the purchase of a product but do not promote the sale of products, the Eleventh Circuit confirmed in Florence Endocrine Clinic, PLLC v. Arriva Medical, LLC, 2017 WL 2415966 (11th Cir. June 5, 2017). The defendant was a…