U.S. District Judge Cindy Jorgenson for Arizona denied a motion to dismiss the robocalling complaint brought in May 2023 by the attorneys general of 48 states and the District of Columbia (see 2305230069), said the judge’s signed order Wednesday (docket 4:23-cv-00233). Defendants Michael Lansky, his company Avid Telecom and Stacey Reeves, Avid’s vice president-operations and sales, filed the motion. The judge also denied their motion to stay the case and refer the AGs’ claims to the FCC and FTC for expert review, said her Wednesday order. Jorgenson granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint within 14 days “to state an alter ego claim of individual liability” against defendant Lansky. Should the plaintiffs not amend their complaint, the defendants will have until June 14 to file an answer, said the order. The judge found there’s no merit to the defendants’ argument that as a matter of law, the plaintiffs’ TCPA claims fail because Avid can’t be found to have ever initiated any calls covered by the TCPA, it said. The defendants also provide no contrary law to that relied on by the plaintiffs, it said. The state AGs allege that Avid, Lansky and Reeves violated the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and state laws in 11 states in facilitating billions of illegal robocalls for years via the company's VoIP services. They allege that Avid received more than 329 notifications from USTelecom's Industry Traceback Group, putting it on notice that it was transmitting illegal robocalls. They also allege that Avid, Lansky and Reeves "knew or consciously avoided knowing they were routing illegal robocall traffic." Robocalls are a "scourge,” said North Carolina AG Josh Stein (D) in a statement Thursday, one of the few AGs to weigh in on the judge's denial of the motion to dismiss. “I’m pleased the court agreed that the defendants’ attempt to dismiss the case was baseless," he said.

Paul Reaves listed his residential phone number on the national do not call registry in 2017 but received at least two telemarketing text messages from Dunlop Sports between December and April promoting its golfing accessories, alleged his Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Tuesday (docket 8:24-cv-00982) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. Reaves’ privacy was violated by the telemarketing text messages, said his complaint. The plaintiff never provided his consent or requested the text solicitations, which were “unwanted, nonconsensual encounters,” it said. Reaves and members of the class have been harmed by Dunlop's acts “because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed,” it said. The text messages 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.

Thomas Grant’s April 22 opposition to former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s motion to dismiss (see 2404230005) “fails to bring sufficient facts to bear to create a reasonable inference” that Ramaswamy was personally liable for the campaign calls to Grant’s phone, said the defendant’s reply Monday (docket 2:24-cv-00281) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus in support of his motion to dismiss. Grant’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint alleges Ramaswamy’s campaign, Vivek 2024, which was suspended Jan. 15, placed calls with the candidate's prerecorded voice to consumers’ cellphones to promote the candidate’s telephonic town hall events. But the plaintiff’s inability “to connect the factual dots” between Ramaswamy and the campaign’s third-party phone vendors isn’t surprising, said Ramaswamy’s reply. It’s a function of his failing to bring suit against the correct party, the Vivek 2024 campaign, it said. Grant consequently “is forced to lean on conclusory allegations” to prop up his complaint, it said. Unfortunately for Grant, “simply including conclusory allegations you hope to be true, without more, is insufficient,” it said. The plaintiff also fails to rebut Ramswamy’s reliance on the regulatory exemptions to the TCPA, it said. Grant specifically contends that the exemption containing the phrase “residential phone line” can’t possibly apply to cellphones, “despite failing to cite a single case” in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “that says as much,” it said. Put differently, Grant lobbies for a “hard bifurcation” between residential phone numbers and cellphone numbers. But in light of the FCC’s “nuanced understanding” of privacy concerns, it’s, at best, “an open question as to whether the residential exemption also applies” to cellphones when those numbers are used primarily for personal, not commercial purposes, it said. Those same privacy concerns are the very basis for the FCC’s willingness to extend the do not call registry for residential lines to wireless phone lines, it said. “The situation is no different here,” said the reply. “The calls at issue are, therefore, exempted under the TCPA,” it said.

Barbara Silva brought suit against Lendvia to stop the debt relief services company from allegedly making unauthorized telemarketing calls to individuals whose numbers are listed on the national do not call registry without prior express written consent, “or any consent whatsoever,” and to individuals who have requested not to be called. In her Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Friday (docket 3:24-cv-00155) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in El Paso, the plaintiff also alleges violations of the Texas Business & Commerce Code. Lendvia called Silva’s El Paso-area-code phone number to generate leads for its debt services, said the complaint. Those calls injured Silva in Texas, creating a “causal link” between Lendvia and the litigation, “exceeding the non-causal affiliation sufficient to support personal specific jurisdiction,” it said. The regulations “enforcing and interpreting” the TCPA require that any person or entity that engages in telemarketing must transmit caller ID information to the calls’ recipients, said the complaint. This prevents a telemarketer from spoofing the phone number from which the telemarketing call is made, it said. The regulations also require telemarketers to provide the name of the telemarketer when available by the telemarketer's carrier and the seller's customer service number, the complaint said. Lendvia didn’t comply with those requirements, “as it provided incorrect information regarding the number from which the calls were being made,” alleged the complaint. Section 302.101 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code prohibits sellers from engaging in telephone 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 for the business location from which the solicitation is made, it said. Silva personally listed her cellphone number on the national DNC registry in February 2022 “to gain seclusion from unwanted solicitation phone calls,” said her complaint. Yet she received at least eight phone calls from Lendvia despite not needing its debt relief services, her complaint said.

David Krugman personally listed his cellphone number on the national do not call registry in 2019, yet Sun Solar placed at least three prerecorded telemarketing calls to that number in late April to promote its solar services, and did so without his consent, alleged Krugman's Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action. The Kansas City, Missouri, plaintiff filed his complaint Monday (docket 4:24-cv-00329) in U.S. District Court for Western Missouri in Kansas City. Krugman and all members of his classes have been harmed by Sun Solar’s acts “because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed,” said the complaint. The calls also occupied their phone lines, rendering them unavailable for legitimate communication, including while driving, working, "and performing other critical tasks," it said.

Julia Faure listed her cellphone number with the national do not call registry in December 2019, and has maintained that registration through the present date, yet beginning in May 2022, Optimal Home Buyers sent her numerous text messages seeking to solicit her to use the company in the sale of her home, alleged Faure’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Friday (docket 1:24-cv-21739) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami. Faure didn’t recognize the sender, and wasn’t looking to sell her home, said the complaint. The Melbourne, Florida, resident also didn’t give the company her prior express written consent to send text messages to her cellphone, it said. Faure suffered actual harm as a result of the text messages at issue “in that she suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a private nuisance,” it said. She suffered additional harm “due to her frustration and difficulty in identifying the entity and persons responsible for the unwanted advertisement or marketing text messages” to her cellphone, it said. Optimal knew or should have known that Faure listed her cellphone number with the DNC registry, said her complaint.

Monica Abboud listed her cellphone number on the national do not call registry in February 2020, yet an Austin restaurant inundated her with multiple unsolicited text messages promoting its business, alleged her Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Friday (docket 1:24-cv-00482) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. Through Hoboken Pie’s unlawful conduct, Abboud “suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA,” said her complaint. Before filing suit, the Texas resident’s counsel sent the defendant a letter requesting any information regarding the authority it alleged for sending the unsolicited text messages, it said. The restaurant responded with no DNC list or registry verification information, the class action. Hoboken Pie also offered Abboud no “informative information” about the unsolicited text messages, it said.

Pinpoint Offers USA, a company that buys homes from consumers for cash, uses prerecorded calls to reach those consumers en masse without their consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged Richard Lipp’s class action Thursday (docket 8:24-cv-00940) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. The Chula Vista, California, resident has never done any business with Pinpoint, doesn’t own a property to sell, and didn’t provide his consent for Pinpoint to place prerecorded calls to his cellphone, said his complaint.

LoanDepot makes prerecorded telemarketing calls soliciting its financial services and loan products to individuals who have previously requested not to be called and to be added to its internal do not call list, alleged plaintiff Robert Hubble’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-11173) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Bay City. The Lake George, Michigan, resident began receiving loanDepot’s telemarketing calls in early January, soliciting him with mortgage services and loan products, said his complaint. When Hubble answered loanDepot’s calls, he was connected to live sales representatives, it said. On multiple occasions, the plaintiff explained that he wasn’t interested and didn’t need any mortgage services or loan products, it said. He would also request that loanDepot not call him again, it said. But despite his repeated requests, loanDepot continued calling him, it said. His complaint logs 50 loanDepot calls to his number between March 27 and April 24. The defendant or those calling on its behalf didn’t have written do not call policies or procedures in place at the time of the calls to Hubble and the classes, said the complaint. Alternatively, whatever written policies existed “either failed to comply with the minimum requirements under the TCPA,” or were never properly implemented, it said. LoanDepot’s TCPA violations were negligent, or they were willful and knowing, it said.

Alpha Lab Services makes telemarketing calls to consumers soliciting sales of its COVID-19 testing kits, and in so doing, it calls numbers listed on the national do not call registry, alleged Nelson Estrada’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-03531) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. Alpha also makes those calls to individuals who have previously requested not to be called and have asked to be added to Alpha’s internal DNC list, said the complaint. Estrada personally listed his phone number on the national DNC registry in March 2019, yet in March 2023, he began receiving numerous marketing calls made by or on behalf of Alpha soliciting him with COVID-19 testing kits, it said. The defendant’s calls all came from various phone numbers that used a 281 area code from the Houston area, said the complaint. Estrada believes Alpha used spoofing to make it appear that the caller was calling from the 281 area code, which was the plaintiff’s own area code, in an effort to make it more likely that he would answer the call, it said. The TCPA prohibits such spoofing conduct, it said. Estrada estimates that Alpha or its agents placed at least 14 telemarketing calls to his residential phone number despite his national DNC registry listing and despite his multiple requests that the calls stop, it said. He alleges that Alpha, and those calling on its behalf, didn’t have written DNC policies or procedures in place, said the complaint. Whatever written policies did exist “either failed to comply with the minimum requirements under the TCPA,” or were never properly implemented, it said. The plaintiff is entitled to damages of $1,500 per TCPA violation because Alpha’s actions were knowing and willful, it said.