Genesis Bank Card Services’ “repeated violations” of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act prompted Jeremy Lam to file a complaint Wednesday (docket 6:24-cv-00992) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando to halt the unlawful conduct. Within the past four years, Genesis began calling the Orlando resident’s cellphone “in an attempt to collect an alleged debt,” said the complaint. The defendant placed the calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice, and also left voicemail messages for Lam using a prerecorded voice, it said. In “complete disregard” of the plaintiff’s cease requests, Genesis continued to “harass” him with automated calls to his cellphone number “at an excessive and harassing rate,” said the complaint. Genesis’s actions caused Lam “a great deal of frustration, stress and anxiety,” it said.

Precision Painting Plus sent or caused to be sent multiple telemarketing text messages to Lachae Vickers’ cellphone between Feb. 11 and April 18 to promote its services, alleged Vickers’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-03862) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York. The information contained in the text messages advertised the painting company’s various promotions and discounts, said the complaint. At no point did Vickers provide Precision with her express written consent to be contacted, nor did she have an existing business relationship with the company, it said. The text messages also were sent to a cellphone number that the Queens, New York, resident personally listed on the national do not call registry in August 2022, it said. The defendant’s unsolicited text messages caused Vickers actual harm, “including invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion,” said the complaint. The text messages also inconvenienced the plaintiff "and caused disruption to her daily life," it said. She seeks actual and statutory damages for herself and each member of the class, plus an injunction requiring Precision “to cease all unsolicited text messaging activity,” it said.

Because plaintiff Stewart Smith has pleaded “concise" short claims of Telephone Consumer Protection Act wrongdoing against Aflac, and the company has been given notice as to the basis of his claims, the insurer's “misguided” May 14 motion to dismiss should be denied (see 2405150017), said Smith’s opposition Tuesday (docket 2:24-cv-00679) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Smith’s class action alleges Aflac placed five telemarketing calls to his cellphone without his consent and in violation of the TCPA’s do not call rule. In its motion to dismiss, Aflac argues that Smith failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but Aflac’s argument fails, said the plaintiff’s opposition. Aflac “errantly argues” that Smith doesn’t plausibly allege the calls were made by the plaintiff or on its behalf, it said. But Smith “specifically alleges the calls placed to him were made by or on behalf of Aflac,” it said. The second amended complaint “clearly alleges” that Smith was either told by representatives that the calls were from Aflac or a message would play indicating the calls were from Aflac, it said. “Such information is sufficient at the pleading stage to identify Aflac as the caller,” said Smith’s opposition. Other TCPA defendants have made “similar strained arguments” as those presented by the defendant, “and those arguments have been rejected by the courts,” it said. The plaintiff doesn’t know the first and last names of every person who works for Aflac and was involved in calling him, “nor would he need to plead as much in a complaint if he did,” it said. Rule 8 requires “a short and plain statement upon which relief can be granted,” it said. The rules of pleading don’t require that the plaintiff show “intricate knowledge of the workings of a defendant’s business, nor do they require tedious, needless details that are inapposite to the basis for which relief can be granted,” it said. The court should reject Aflac’s efforts “to impose new heights on the requirements of Rule 8,” it said.

The Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority has engaged in “illegally calling” the cellphone numbers of hundreds of consumers using an artificial or prerecorded voice without first obtaining the prior express consent of the called party, alleged a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Tuesday (docket 5:24-cv-00270) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida. Tracie Coffey, a Wildwood, Florida, resident, seeks injunctive relief to halt the loan servicer’s illegal conduct, “which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of scores of individuals,” said her complaint. She also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, “and any other available legal or equitable remedies,” it said. Any TCPA violations were “knowing, willful, and intentional,” and the authority didn’t maintain procedures “reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation,” it said. For months, the defendant repeatedly called Coffey on her cellphone using an artificial or prerecorded voice, though she didn’t give the defendant her prior express written consent to make these calls, said the complaint. After being harassed for months, she was forced to send the defendant a “demand letter,” informing it that it was in violation of the TCPA, it said. The defendant sent Coffey an email confirming it had received the demand letter, but “incredibly,” the authority “continued to make artificial or prerecorded calls in violation of the TCPA,” said the complaint.

Ryan Binkley, who suspended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination Feb. 27, placed prerecorded calls and sent text-message solicitations to consumers’ cellphones to promote his telephonic town hall events without first obtaining their prior express consent, alleged Thomas Grant’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Monday (docket 3:24-cv-01286) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Grant alleges that Binkley “expressly authorized” the making of these prerecorded calls “or knew that they were going to be made for his personal benefit, to promote his presidential candidacy, and did nothing to stop them,” said the complaint. “Binkley controlled the timing of calls, right before his telephonic town hall events,” it said. Binkley also actively promoted his town hall events through his personal social media channels, including on Facebook and Instagram, it said. Binkley also controlled the recipients of the calls “by dictating that the messages be sent to voters registered as independents,” including Grant, it said. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop Binkley from violating the TCPA, plus an award of statutory damages to the members of the class and court costs and attorneys’ fees, said the complaint. The Hudson, New Hampshire, resident alleges that Binkley or his campaign sent five calls or text messages to his cellphone in late January without his consent. The unauthorized solicitation phone calls and text messages that Grant received from or on behalf of the defendant have harmed the plaintiff “in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy,” plus they have occupied his phone line, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of his phone, said the complaint. Grant sued another former Republican presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, Jan. 23 on similar allegations (see 2401240002). Ramaswamy has blasted that complaint as a “shakedown,” contending that Grant should have targeted Ramaswamy’s campaign, Vivek 2024, as the proper TCPA defendant (see 2403250026).

Cornerstone Auto Protection promotes sales of its vehicle warranty plans by relying on third-party telemarketing vendors like Call Handles to generate leads, alleged Mark Ortega’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Monday (docket 5:24-cv-00573) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in San Antonio. Cornerstone and Call Handles routinely violate the TCPA by making telemarketing calls to consumers without their consent, including calls to phone numbers listed on the national do not call registry, alleged the Texas resident’s complaint. Texas law, under Section 302.101 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code, also prohibits sellers from engaging in phone solicitations from a location in Texas or to a purchaser located in Texas unless the seller obtains a registration certificate from the Texas secretary of state, which the defendants didn’t do, it said. Cornerstone hired Call Handles to originate new business using telemarketing calls, said the complaint. The defendant accepted the benefits of Call Handles’ illegal telemarketing “by taking live transfers of leads directly from Call Handles,” it said. Cornerstone “failed to take effective steps within its power” to force Call Handles to cease calling consumers whose numbers were listed on the DNC registry, it said.

Atlas Medical Management violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by “bombarding” consumers with unsolicited fax ads to promote its business, and did so without consumers' consent, alleged Jeffery Katz’s class action Thursday (docket 3:24-cv-03141) in U.S. District Court for Northern California. The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from unsolicited and unwanted phone and fax solicitations “exactly like those alleged in this case,” said the complaint. Katz of San Francisco seeks an injunction requiring Atlas to cease all unsolicited fax ads, plus an award of statutory damages and treble damages for knowing and willful TCPA violations, it said.

Slingshot Enterprises violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making telemarketing calls to Leon Weingrad and other putative class members whose numbers were listed on the national do not call registry without their written consent, alleged Weingrad’s class action Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-03736) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Central Islip. An ADT home security vendor, Slingshot also phoned people who had previously asked to no longer receive calls, said his complaint. Weingrad’s phone number had been listed on the national DNC registry for at least a year before he began receiving the calls at issue, it said. The plaintiff has never been a Slingshot customer and never consented to receive Slingshot’s calls, it said. He nevertheless received at least eight solicitation calls from Slingshot since early April, pitching him on an ADT home alarm system, it said. Weingrad spoke to an ADT representative who identified Slingshot as the source of the illegal calls, said the complaint. The calls were unwanted, and they were “nonconsensual encounters,” said the complaint. The plaintiff’s privacy has been “repeatedly violated” by the unwanted telemarketing calls, it said. He and the class have been harmed by Slingshot’s acts because they were “annoyed and harassed,” it said. The calls also occupied their phone lines, storage space and bandwidth, “rendering them unavailable for legitimate communication, including while driving, working, and performing other critical tasks,” it said.

InsureMe markets its insurance services through the use of automated telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, alleged Adren Mitchell’s class action Wednesday (docket 3:24-cv-00520) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida. The recipients of InsureMe’s illegal calls, which include Mitchell and the proposed classes, are entitled to damages under the TCPA and FTSA, said the complaint. Mitchell’s cellphone number has been listed with the national do not call registry since April 2023, yet he received a prerecorded call from InsureMe on April 2, inquiring about his interest in buying health coverage, it said. The Flagler County, Florida, resident has never had any business relationship with InsureMe, nor was he looking to buy insurance coverage, it said. He also has never given his express written consent for InsureMe to place solicitation calls to his cellphone, it said.

The Freedom Boat Club promotes its recreational boat rentals services at locations throughout the U.S. by engaging in aggressive unsolicited marketing, “harming thousands of consumers in the process,” alleged Jordan Copeland’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Wednesday (docket 3:24-cv-00225) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Pensacola. The membership-based club uses aggressive marketing to push its products and services “without regards to consumers’ rights under the TCPA,” said Copeland’s complaint. The defendant began “bombarding” Copeland with telemarketing text messages to his cellphone in February, and the conduct persisted through the month of April, though the Florida resident’s cellphone number has been listed on the national do not call registry since June 2016, it said. The defendant’s unsolicited text messages caused Copeland “actual harm,” including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass and conversion, said the complaint. The text messages also inconvenienced Copeland and caused disruption to his daily life, it said. Copeland estimates that he has wasted 15-30 seconds reviewing each of the defendant’s unwanted messages, it said. Each time, Copeland had to stop what he was doing to either retrieve his phone or look down at the phone to review the message, it said. He also wasted approximately 15 minutes locating and retaining counsel to stop the defendant’s unwanted calls, it said.