Defendant Mercantile Adjustment Bureau’s debt collection services include making “indiscriminate” phone calls “without regard as to whether the recipient of the call is in fact associated with the debt sought,” said Sage Telecom's first amended complaint Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-02737) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Plaintiff Sage, which provides discounted internet and phone service to low-income Texas consumers through state and federally funded programs (see 2212080043), alleges at least 187 subscribers to its LifeLine service received multiple telephone solicitations in the past two years from a phone number owned by Mercantile, in violation of Texas’ Business & Communications Code 302.251. The amended complaint includes screenshots of reviews of Mercantile from consumers who received the calls. One complained of repeated calls from Mercantile, including 13 in that day alone, calling it “harassment.” Another said a Mercantile debt collector asked for personal information, but refused to answer questions about the nature of Mercantile's business, including whether it was a debt collector. A third said Mercantile left a voicemail about a debt she wasn’t associated with, calling the company’s practices an “absolute scam.” Another reviewer said she made a payment through Mercantile for two bills consolidated into one and received a notice two years later that the same bill was still owed. The defendant’s business practices are unlawful under the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act (TTSA), prohibiting a service provider to any Texas resident from first obtaining a registration statement with the secretary of state, paying a filing fee and posting a $10,000 security bond, the complaint alleges. The amended complaint, coming three weeks after Mercantile filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, added allegations of TTSA wrongdoing that were missing from the original complaint. Mercantile’s Dec. 14 motion to dismiss called Sage’s allegations “nonsensical” because the plaintiff acknowledged Mercantile “never contacted or attempted to solicit anything” from Sage via telephone (see 2212150047). With the filing of Sage's amended complaint, Senior U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater entered an electronic order Thursday denying Mercantile's motion to dismiss as moot. Sage seeks penalties of $5,000 per violation, amounting to $935 million, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees. Mercantile didn’t comment Thursday.
There were 1,399 complaints alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act filed in all federal jurisdictions in calendar 2022, our tabulation of federal court records found. That was down marginally from the 1,415 TCPA cases filed in 2021, and a 13.7% decrease from the 1,622 in 2020. Our tallies include all cases, active and closed, that originated in the federal courts, or that defendants removed to federal courts from state courts.
Grubhub will pay $3.5 million to settle claims that it charged customers “hidden fees” and used “deceptive marketing” in violation of local consumer protection laws, Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine (D) announced in a settlement Friday. Grubhub listed menu items with prices higher than those on certain restaurants’ own menus, Racine’s office alleged in claims originally filed in March. Racine said the company deceived consumers about their ability to order online for free and deceptively advertised subscribers’ ability to get free delivery. The settlement requires several changes to Grubhub’s business practices: The company must prominently display all checkout fees for consumers, display line items for each fee and stop combining taxes and fees into one item at checkout. Nearly $3 million will go to affected customers and the district will receive an $800,000 civil penalty. The company didn’t comment.
With the first statewide digital right-to-repair bill (SB 4104-A) in the U.S. now bearing the signature of New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), attention turns to whether tech groups like CTA and CTIA will litigate to block the statute from taking effect July 1. Neither group responded to our queries seeking comment about the bill’s signing or the prospects of taking the statute to the courts.
Each side in Core Communications’ legal fight to recover $11.4 million in unpaid access services charges from AT&T (see 2211230053) pointed the finger at the other in arguing which bears the burden of proof in showing that the calls at issue were legitimate and not improper robocalls.
The Corinth, New York, planning board's denial of AT&T’s site plan review application to build a 150-foot-tall monopole wireless telecommunications tower in the middle of a residential neighborhood “must not be disturbed,” said the town’s opposition Friday (docket 1:21-cv-00149) in U.S. District Court for Northern New York in Syracuse. AT&T had filed an Oct. 14 motion for summary judgment. Friday's filing also was in support of the town's own cross-motion for summary judgment.
State Farm, via third parties acting on its behalf, made numerous telemarketing calls to consumer Thomas Gebka’s cellphone number to advertise the insurance company's goods and services without Gebka’s express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged his amended class-action complaint Friday (docket 1:22-cv-05546) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. State Farm’s Dec. 2 motion to dismiss Gebka’s original Oct. 10 complaint argued the plaintiff did not properly allege a do-not-call claim under the TCPA because the complaint asserted he added his residential phone number to the do-not-call registry but received the allegedly unlawful calls on his cellphone. Gebka’s amended complaint reworded the original, saying he registered his residential phone number, with 2696 as the last four digits, on the do-not-call registry, and used that number -- “assigned to a cellular telephone service” -- for residential purposes. Gebka’s original complaint listed no phone numbers on which he received the allegedly unlawful calls.
Plaintiff Avid Telecom, in a first amended complaint Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta, updated party information for the defendant, TransNexus, noting it's a Delaware corporation with principal offices in Atlanta. The original complaint placed TransNexus' principal offices in Lithia Springs, Georgia. The original defendant in the case, TransNexus LLC, previously merged into TransNexus Inc., making TransNexus Inc. the correct defendant in the lawsuit, said the first amended complaint (docket 1:22-cv-04829). Common carrier Avid's suit alleges TransNexus defamed Avid CEO Michael Lansky by depicting him as an illegal robocaller (see 2212080050).
The FTC should stop delaying and decide on Meta’s motion for the recusal of Chair Lina Khan in Meta's proposed Within Unlimited buy being heard in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose (docket 5:22-cv-04325), said Commissioner Christine Wilson in a statement Thursday. She noted Oct. 21 was the original deadline for the commission to issue a decision on the motion to stay administrative proceedings in its antitrust case against Meta’s Within Unlimited buy. The commission can’t decide whether to stay proceedings until it rules on Meta’s motion for disqualification, which was filed July 25, she said. The commission extended its own deadline to decide on the motion to stay proceedings in October, again in November and a third time Thursday, extending the deadline to Jan. 19. “The Motion to Stay was filed almost four months ago, and the Commission is now less than a month away from the beginning of the administrative trial,” Wilson said. “The inability to manage our Part 3 process judiciously will provide further fodder for those who question its integrity" (see 2211150083). The motion for recusal seeks Khan’s disqualification from “participating in any decisions concerning the FTC’s review of the Meta/Within transaction on due process and federal ethics grounds,” she noted. “Unfortunately, details about the Commission’s efforts to address the Motion for Disqualification remain non-public, and I cannot disclose them here. Suffice it to say that, in many circumstances, not deciding is deciding. I believe that in refusing to reach a timely decision, the Commission is relying on delay tactics rather than legal reasoning and good government.” She asked for a decision on the disqualification “without further delay,” saying she has “formulated” her opinion and is “ready to move forward with this matter.” The FTC didn’t comment.
Crown Castle is “unlawfully holding” onto premises “with force” that it leased for a cell tower in Eugene, Oregon, despite the lease’s expiration, alleged landlord Ryan Goshen Properties (RGP) in an eviction complaint (docket 22LT18280) Wednesday in Oregon Circuit Court for Lane County. The complaint cites notices of expiration dated February and April 2021, referencing a February 1998 lease agreement between a prior lessor, Paul Wilkins, and the original lessee US West, to which Crown Castle is the successor in interest. RGP will consider entering into a new lease with Crown Castle under conditions that include a one-time five-year term through March 2027, with no renewal option, said the complaint. Crown Castle didn’t comment Thursday.