The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) levied an enormous fine against a San Diego-based telemarketer for violations of the Truth in Caller ID Act. The $10 million fine arises from a robocall campaign related to a 2018 election for a seat in the California Assembly.
While the election is less than a week away, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) risks for political campaigns remain in full force. A resident of New York state filed a lawsuit against President Trump’s re-election campaign alleging violations of the TCPA’s prohibitions against the use of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS).
The 2020 presidential campaign for Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire media mogul and former New York City mayor, lasted barely more than 3 months and cost a reported $1 billion—mostly coming out of his own pocket.
A recent ruling in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action illustrates how the TCPA risks incurred by political campaigns can be spread to the platforms that those campaigns use to send their messages.
As we reach the middle of the summer, we are approaching the homestretch of an election year. This means, among other things, that we are near a high water mark for political messaging by means of telephone solicitation. Some callers may be under the mistaken impression that political calls are exempt from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). This is not true.
A Georgia state legislator faces a class action for alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations committed in service of her campaign for a congressional seat.
As we enter the summer of an election year, we are seeing further evidence of how the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) poses risks for political campaigns. This week, a TCPA class action was filed against the erstwhile presidential campaign of Vermont senator Bernie Sanders.
In the latest decision in the ongoing Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action against President Trump’s re-election campaign, the Eighth District Court of Appeals adopted the expansive definition of what constitutes an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) previously set forth in the Ninth Circuit’s infamous, landmark decision in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC.
