Customer Care Global, a third-party debt collector, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it attempted to collect on an outstanding loan that Don Block defaulted on, said Block’s complaint Tuesday (docket 1:24-cv-04171) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. Block notified Customer Care’s representatives that he didn’t have the means to make payment and requested that the company stop calling him, said the complaint. Block even reiterated such requests during subsequent calls, including in October and several times in early 2024, it said. In spite of the plaintiff’s “explicit” requests, Customer Care has placed more than dozen phone calls to his cellphone “through the present day,” it said. Seeing no end to the defendant’s “harassing conduct,” Block was forced to retain counsel, “and his damages therefore include reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action,” it said. The plaintiff has been “unfairly treated and harassed” by Customer Care's actions, it said. He has suffered concrete harm as a result, including loss of sleep, stress, invasion of privacy and aggravation that accompanies collection telephone calls, plus emotional distress and diminished cellphone capacity and functionality, it said.

Steven Kern’s class action seeks to reverse “a disturbing trend” whereby real estate agents cold-call consumers without consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said Kern’s complaint Tuesday (docket 2:24-cv-04207) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. Kern alleges that Sasha Rahban, a Los Angeles real estate agent, places calls to consumers using a prerecorded voice message without the consumers’ prior written consent to receive such calls, said his class action. As a result, Los Angeles resident Kern seeks injunctive and monetary relief “for all persons injured by Rahban’s telemarketing calls,” it said. As explained in the FCC’s February 2012 order, the TCPA requires prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded solicitation calls to wireless numbers and residential phone lines, said the complaint. Yet in violation of that rule, Rahban “fails to obtain any express written consent” before placing his prerecorded voice calls to cellphone numbers such as Kern’s, it said. The plaintiff received one such unsolicited call to his cellphone April 26 from Rahban or on Rahban’s behalf, said the complaint. Kern didn’t answer the call, but a prerecorded voicemail was left inquiring whether he was in the market to sell his home, it said. Kern never consented to receiving solicitation calls from the defendant, nor was he looking to sell his home, it said. The unauthorized voicemail that Rahban or someone on his behalf left with Kern harmed the plaintiff “in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of his phone,” it said.

HomeAdvisor’s business is to connect consumers with various home project services, and it promotes itself through telemarketing text messages placed directly to consumers, often in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged Kimberly Hudson’s class action Monday (docket 1:24-cv-01408) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver. Her case “is about stopping incessant telemarketers” like HomeAdvisor from sending unwanted text messages to the cellphones of Hudson “and likely thousands of other persons,” said the complaint. The Texas resident personally listed her cellphone number on the national do not call registry in October 2009, yet HomeAdvisor began sending her telemarketing text messages in January 2023 that haven’t stopped, it said. The defendant controlled or had the right to control the marketing activities of any potential third party, it said. The company “is not permitted under the law to outsource and contract its way out of liability by directing and benefiting from its agents’ TCPA violations,” it said. If HomeAdvisor directly sent the text messages, it's “directly liable” for any TCPA violations, it said. To the extent any text messages were made by a third party acting on HomeAdvisor’s behalf, the defendant “is vicariously liable for those unlawful text messages,” it said.

American Eagle Outfitters has been “bombarding” Megan Tarantino since at least December with telemarketing text messages to her cellphone number, alleged Tarantino’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Friday (docket 3:24-cv-00139) in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Galveston. The retailer’s unlawful conduct sparked the plaintiff to list her cellphone number with the national do not call registry on Jan. 11, “in an attempt to prevent further unsolicited text messages” from American Eagle, her complaint said. American Eagle continued sending unsolicited text messages to the Galveston County resident's number, it said, including the incessant text messages she received throughout March and April, it said. American Eagle’s unsolicited text messages caused Tarantino “actual harm,” including the invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, said her class action. The text messages also inconvenienced her and caused “disruption to her daily life,” it said. She seeks actual and statutory damages for herself and each member of the class, plus injunctive relief requiring the defendant “to cease all unsolicited text messaging activity,” and to otherwise protect the interests of the class, it said.

Twilio, a cloud communications company, “essentially bridges the gap between web-based applications and the telephone network,” but in so doing, it has been originating “illegal robocall traffic” for years, alleged Michael Anthony’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Friday (docket 3:24-cv-02999) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Twilio has initiated hundreds of calls to Anthony’s cellphone, in violation of the TCPA, alleged his complaint. Though Anthony notified Twilio “countless times” that he listed his cellphone with the national do not call registry in May 2004, Twilio “continually harassed him by transmitting unlawful text messages and making illegal call after illegal call,” it said. The FCC in January 2023 determined that Twilio was originating illegal robocall traffic on behalf of one or more of its clients, it said. In its cease-and-desist letter, the FCC “mandated that Twilio take steps to address the illegal traffic, and take steps to prevent Twilio’s network from continuing to be a source of illegal robocalls,” it said. The FCC gave the company the “potentially devastating ultimatum” that failure to comply with the commission’s corrective measures “may result in downstream voice service providers blocking all of Twilio’s traffic, permanently,” it said. Twilio nevertheless refuses to implement a systemwide block to Anthony’s cellphone and continued to transmit, countless unlawful telemarketing calls and text messages to his cellphone, said his complaint. For example, in 2022, the Pennsylvania resident received prerecorded calls and text messages from a company called Fulcrum Home Solutions, but without his consent, it said. Anthony contacted Fulcrum, which “expressly identified Twilio as the service being used to generate prerecorded calls in violation of the TCPA,” it said. Despite the plaintiff bringing this to Twilio’s attention, the company “kept inundating him with unsolicited calls and text messages,” it said. Twilio acknowledges in its public filings with the SEC that its platform technology allows mass text messaging campaigns that violate the TCPA, said the complaint. Twilio’s October 2016 S-1 filing said that the company faces a risk of litigation resulting from “customer misuse” of its software to send unauthorized text messages in violation of the TCPA: “If we do not comply with these laws or regulations or if we become liable under these laws or regulations due to the failure of our customers to comply with these laws by obtaining proper consent, we could face direct liability.” Twilio knew its application program interface and its servers “were being used to violate the TCPA and, indeed, aided in the misuse of its API and servers,” as Anthony “continually notified Twilio of its malfeasance,” said the complaint. The defendant’s conduct “violates several sections of the TCPA,” it said. Anthony suffered injuries and is entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages for each violation of the TCPA, and up to $1,500 if Twilio’s violations are determined to be “knowing or willful,” it said.

Fastwyre Broadband violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making telemarketing calls and sending text messages to Cathie Veres and other putative class members after they requested to no longer receive such communications, Veres’ class action alleged Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00157) in U.S. District Court for Southern Alabama in Selma. Veres did not consent to receive telemarketing calls from Fastwyre, the complaint said. The plaintiff was never a Fastwyre customer, though during fall 2023 she considered using its services, it said. Soon thereafter, she began receiving the company's telemarketing calls and text messages, it said. Between fall 2023 and May 13, when the last call arrived, Veres received more than 200 Fastwyre telemarketing calls and text messages, her complaint states. Veres sent the company multiple messages demanding that the communications cease, but to no avail, it said.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court is considering for an upcoming oral argument calendar in Phoenix plaintiff-appellant Jacob Howard's appeal to reverse the dismissal of his Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint against the Republican National Committee (see 2402080021), said a text-only docket notice Thursday (docket 23-3826). The 9th Circuit is weighing sitting dates for September or October, said the notice. Howard alleges the RNC violated the TCPA when it texted him with an embedded video that used an artificial or prerecorded voice. The RNC argues that only voice calls can violate the TCPA because an MMS text message can never have a voice.

Big Sandy Superstore, a furniture business in Lancaster, Ohio, engages in unsolicited text messaging to promote its goods and services to consumers who have listed their phone numbers on the national do not call registry, alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-00282) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio. Marissa Porter of Polk County, Florida, seeks injunctive relief to halt Big Sandy’s unlawful TCPA conduct, “which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal” to her and the class members, said her complaint. Porter also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, plus “any other available legal or equitable remedies,” it said. The plaintiff alleges that Big Sandy sent at least four text-message solicitations to her residential cellphone between June 5 and Feb. 13, though her number has been continuously listed on the national DNC registry since August 2008, said her complaint. Upon information and belief, Big Sandy maintains access to outbound transmission reports for all text messages sent to consumers advertising or promoting its services and goods, it said. These reports show the dates, times, target phone numbers and content of each message sent to Porter and the class members, it said. The plaintiff “has never had any type of business relationship” with Big Sandy, it said. She also never signed “any type of authorization” permitting or allowing Big Sandy to send her text-message solicitations, it said.

Kelli Davies brought suit against the Bank of Missouri for its “abusive and outrageous conduct in connection with debt collection activity,” in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, said her complaint Wednesday (docket 8:24-cv-01051) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. The bank received no fewer than seven notices revoking Davies’ consent to be contacted by prerecorded messages, yet it still called and otherwise contacted her more than 100 separate times, alleged the complaint. The TCPA was designed to prevent calls like those placed to the plaintiff, and to protect the privacy of citizens like her, it said. By enacting the TCPA, Congress “intended to give consumers a choice as to how corporate entities may contact them and to prevent the nuisance associated with automated or prerecorded calls,” it said. A California resident, Davies opened a Fortiva credit card account issued by the Bank of Missouri sometime in early 2021. The bank has been attempting to collect on a debt that originated from monetary credit that was extended primarily for personal, family or household purposes, and was therefore a consumer credit transaction within the meaning of the Rosenthal Act, said the complaint. Davies eventually became financially unable to continue making the monthly payments on her account, and the bank began contacting her “to inquire about the status of the account and to collect on the payments that were no longer being made,” it said. Davies sent the bank her first notice in May 2023 withdrawing her consent to be contacted on her cellphone, and her revocation notices to the bank continued through December, but so did the bank’s collection calls, it said. The bank would call the plaintiff numerous times each day demanding payment on the account, it said. Davies initiated a complaint against the bank with the American Arbitration Association on Feb. 21, but the bank failed to timely pay the arbitration fees as required under California law, said the complaint. The plaintiff’s counsel confirmed with the AAA on May 8 that Davies was electing to pursue her claims in district court as a result of the bank’s failure to timely pay the arbitration fees “and in order to clear up any ambiguity regarding the lack of payment of the initial fees,” it said.

Aflac seeks the dismissal of Stewart Smith’s second amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action for failure to state a claim, said the insurer’s memorandum of law Tuesday (docket 2:24-cv-00679) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in support of its motion to dismiss. Smith originally alleged that Aflac violated the TCPA by placing a single telemarketing robocall to his cellphone, despite his number having been listed on the national do not call registry since June 2010 (see 2402160002). Aflac filed a motion April 8 to dismiss Smith’s first amended complaint for failure to state a claim (see 2404090028), said the memorandum. The plaintiff didn’t respond to that motion, but instead, nine days after the deadline to respond had elapsed, he filed a second amended complaint “in an apparent attempt to cure the deficiencies” that Aflac identified in the first amended complaint, it said. But the second amended complaint “sets forth only a few new allegations, most of which are generalized and non-specific,” it said. For largely the same reasons set forth in Aflac’s prior motion to dismiss, the court should dismiss Smith’s second amended complaint with prejudice, it said. Though the plaintiff now alleges that he received more than one call, he still doesn’t allege facts to support his “conclusory assertion” that Aflac itself or someone acting on Aflac’s behalf placed those calls, said the memorandum. His entire theory of liability against Aflac rests on the “single, conclusory allegation” that Aflac placed the calls because an automated message would play indicating the call was from Aflac or that a live caller would tell Smith that the call was from Aflac, it said. But Smith doesn’t allege “any details whatsoever about these calls to support the notion that Aflac was responsible,” it said. For example, he doesn’t identify the number that called him, describe how the live caller identified himself or herself, detail what was said during the live calls or during the prerecorded message, or provide any other facts that could identify Aflac as the caller, it said. Nor does Smith explain how any of the purported calls “were dispositioned,” that he identified the phone numbers that placed the calls as being connected to Aflac, that he spoke with a company representative or agent initially or following a prerecorded message, or that he received a quote or other documentation from the insurer after any calls, it said. Because Smith doesn’t allege sufficient facts to establish that there was a TCPA violation or that Aflac was involved at all, the court should dismiss the second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), with prejudice, it said.