Deborah Anderson listed her cellphone number on the national do not call registry in July 2005, yet starting in early 2022 and continuing through the present, she received numerous text messages from a rotating series of phone numbers, seeking to solicit her to use two real estate firms in the sale of her house, alleged her Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Wednesday (docket 8:24-cv-00591) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Anderson didn’t recognize the senders, and wasn’t looking to sell her Cleveland, Ohio, home, said the complaint. She didn’t give the firms, Distressed Solutions and Southeast Property Investments Network, prior express written consent to send text messages to her cellphone, it said. She 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.

Corporate officers can’t be held liable for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said defendant Michael Lansky, president of Avid Telecom, Tuesday in a defendants’ supplement (docket 4:23-cv-00233) to their motion to dismiss a robocall case brought in May by the attorneys general of 48 states (see 2305240010). The complaint alleged Avid Telecom and executives Michael Lansky and Stacey Reeves facilitated robocalls or helped others make them. It alleged the defendants received 329 notifications from the USTelecom-led Industry Traceback Group, putting them “on notice” that Avid was transmitting illegal robocalls. The AGs seek a permanent injunction preventing defendants from initiating or transmitting illegal robocalls to U.S. consumers and from transmitting calls that violate the TSR, plus an award of damages of $1,500 per Title 47 violation, civil penalties of $10,000 and state penalties. Referencing what he called a “growing trend of caselaw,” Lansky noted Perrong v. Chase Data, in which the 3rd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court, citing City Select Auto Sales v. David Randall Associates, dismissed all TCPA claims vs. an individual business owner, raising doubt as to whether “common-law-personal participation liability is available against corporate officers under the TCPA.” Since the City Select ruling, courts in the 3rd Circuit have found that "a corporate officer is not liable under the TCPA common law personal liability principles,” said the supplement, noting KHS Corp. v. Singer Financial Corp. The defendants “acknowledge that the Perrong case is not binding precedent” on the court, but said the legal analysis it contains “is sound and reflects the growing view in courts across the country that the TCPA does not and cannot create personal liability in corporate officers for the allegedly illegal conduct of the company,” it said. The defendants request that claims against each of them in their individual capacities should be dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff Christopher Prosser voluntarily dismisses, without prejudice, his Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against Medica Central Insurance “for the purpose of consolidation of multiple cases,” said his notice Wednesday (docket 4:24-cv-00276) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Missouri in St. Louis. The notice “is not to cause any undue delay, nor for bad faith or any other vexatious purpose,” it said. Prosser’s complaint alleged that Medica and its agents use automated systems to make outbound telemarketing calls and text messages to hundreds if not thousands of consumers across the U.S., soliciting consumers to purchase their services and insurance policies, in violation of the TCPA and the Missouri No-Call law (see 2402230006).

Manuel Guadian listed his personal cellphone number on the national do not call registry April 6 “to obtain solitude from invasive and harassing telemarketing calls.” Yet the pro se plaintiff received at least 11 solicitation calls through January from vendor Upside Legal offering debt relief services on behalf of Houston company Philip Sellers, alleged Guadian’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Tuesday (docket 3:24-cv-00074) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in El Paso. Sellers pays Upside a commission fee for every new client Upside generates on Sellers’ behalf, said the complaint. Upside and Sellers make “substantial profit gains through illegal telemarketing,” it said. Guadian of El Paso never requested information about debt relief services and didn’t provide his prior express written consent to receive any of the alleged calls, it said. Sellers and Upside “knew or should have known the requirements for making telemarketing calls and thus knew or should have known that the alleged calls complained of herein violated the TCPA and its regulations,” said the complaint. Upside and Sellers telemarketing agents “employ outrageous, aggressive and illegal sales techniques that violate multiple federal laws and state consumer statutes,” it said. The complaint also alleges violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, the law governing telephone solicitations. Guadian seeks statutory damages, plus attorneys’ fees and court costs.

Plaintiff Kellie Deits and defendant Rocket Mortgage have reached a settlement agreement in principle that contemplates filing a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of all of Deits’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against the lender, said their notice of settlement Friday (docket 2:23-cv-02385) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. The parties anticipate filing that stipulation within the next 30 days, said their notice. Deits alleged that Rocket conducted a nationwide telemarketing campaign to promote its business and to generate leads for its mortgage-related products and services by placing repeated, unsolicited phone calls to persons who have told it to stop calling (see 2311150001). She alleged that Rocket placed 30 telemarketing calls to her cellphone in 10 days.

Plaintiff Meira Avauni Rawlings and defendant Bath Fitter have reached an agreement in principle to resolve all of Rawlings’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims, said the parties’ notice of settlement Friday (docket 1:24-cv-00073) in U.S. District Court for Middle Pennsylvania in Harrisburg. “The parties request that the matter be passed for settlement,” said their notice. Rawlings alleged that Bath Fitter, a marketer of bathroom remodeling products and services, has long engaged in aggressive telemarketing, and has settled at least one TCPA class action lawsuit involving telemarketing calls (see 2401170001). She alleges she received at least four Bath Fitter telemarketing calls to her cellphone, though her number was listed on the national do not call registry since June 2021.

Liberty Mutual violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing unwanted solicitation calls to consumers’ residential phone numbers that are listed on the national do not call registry, alleged Adam Ward’s class action Friday (docket 1:24-cv-10526) in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Boston. The Cocoa, Florida, resident listed his number on the national DNC registry in August 2005 “to afford himself the protections” against “invasive and irritating telemarketing calls,” said his complaint. But Liberty Mutual nevertheless engaged in a telemarketing campaign directed toward Ward “in furtherance of its efforts to sell him an insurance policy he did not want or need,” it said. Ward didn’t provide express written consent or any consent for the company’s solicitation calls and texts, it said. Before the telemarketing campaign, the plaintiff didn’t have any established business relationship with Liberty Mutual, it said, saying he received a total of seven calls and text messages from the company. He experienced “frustration, annoyance, irritation and a sense that his privacy has been invaded,” said his complaint. Without having had the benefit of discovery to show otherwise, Ward alleges Liberty Mutual “is directly liable" for the unsolicited calls and text messages at issue because they were placed or made directly by the company, it said. Alternatively, if discovery reveals that some or all of the calls or text messages were made by third parties on Liberty Mutual’s behalf, then Liberty Mutual is vicariously liable for those calls or texts, it said. The FCC’s May 2013 declaratory ruling determined that hiring a vendor that engages in TCPA wrongdoing “was not a basis for avoiding liability,” it said. The FCC ruling “rejected a narrow view of TCPA liability, including the assertion that a seller’s liability requires a finding of formal actual agency and immediate direction and control over third parties who place a telemarketing call,” said the complaint. Liberty Mutual may have hired, encouraged, permitted and enjoyed the benefits of mass telemarketing by third-party telemarketers that are currently unknown to Ward and only known to Liberty Mutual, it said. The company “ratified its agents’ violations of the TCPA by accepting leads and deriving profit from sales imitated by unlawful robocalls,” the complaint said.

CR Fitness seeks Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff Ben Davis and his counsel for pursuing a “frivolous” Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuit, said its motion Friday (docket 8:23-cv-02333) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Davis alleges that CR Fitness, the largest U.S. franchisee of Crunch Fitness gyms, embarked on an aggressive marketing campaign to sell club memberships by placing unsolicited, prerecorded telemarketing robocalls to consumers (see 2310140001). Davis alleges that he received a single unsolicited voicemail from CR Fitness in violation of the TCPA, but the “fatal flaw” to his case is that CR Fitness “never called him,” said the defendant's motion. Davis and his counsel by now “are well aware that the alleged voicemail was not made directly by CR Fitness, on behalf of CR Fitness, or at CR Fitness’ direction,” it said. The company provided its call records showing it never called Davis, it said. Notwithstanding the evidence of “non-liability,” the plaintiff “refuses to dismiss this baseless action, a failure that is magnified by the nature of class action claims where ascertainability is crucial,” the motion said. “This action is frivolous and should be dismissed," with sanctions being imposed against Davis and his counsel “for bad faith pursuit of these claims,” it said.

Virginia Cole and Tranzact jointly moved for dismissal of Cole’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against Tranzact with prejudice under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, said their motion Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-01083) in U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee in Nashville. Cole and Tranzact notified the court Jan. 19 of a tentative settlement, it said. They have since finalized the settlement agreement “such that it is appropriate for Tranzact to be dismissed with prejudice,” it said. There’s no indication that allowing this dismissal would unduly prejudice the remaining defendant, John Doe Corp., it said. Cole alleged that Tranzact, which sells burial insurance, waged a campaign to market its services through a third party, temporarily called John Doe Corp., that made telemarketing calls to numbers on the national do not call registry, in “plain violation” of the TCPA (see 2310180011).

Solar panel company Greenstar Power denies the allegations in Kelly Pinn’s class action that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Business and Commerce Code (TBCC), said Greenstar’s answer Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-00066) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. Pinn alleges that Greenstar hired an unidentified vendor to make telemarketing calls to numbers on the national do not call registry, and that her own number has been on the DNC registry for more than a year (see 2401230002). But the complaint “fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action” against Greenstar, said its answer. The TCPA and its regulations, rules and interpretations, plus the TBCC, violate the First Amendment because they impose “content-based restrictions on speech that fail to withstand strict scrutiny,” it said. The application of the TCPA and TBCC, on which the complaint is based, including the imposition of statutory damages on Greenstar, also violate the Constitution's due process provisions, it said. Certain definitions contained in the TCPA also “render the statute unconstitutionally vague,” it said. Additionally, the statutory penalties that Pinn seeks are excessive, it said. She and her putative class members are barred from asserting their claims “because the calls at issue were sent with the recipients’ prior express permission or consent and that consent was either irrevocable or was not effectively revoked,” it said. Any and all claims brought in the complaint are barred because Greenstar “possessed a good-faith belief that it was not committing any wrongdoing and any violations resulted from a bona fide error,” despite reasonable practices to prevent violations of the TBCC, the TCPA and related regulations, it said.