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 district court in Louisiana has rendered an unexpected decision in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action that interprets the Supreme Court’s recent Barr v. American Association of Political Callers decision such that it retroactively renders the TCPA unconstitutional from November 2015 until June of this year.

Arbitration clauses can be a useful tool for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) defendants but, as a recent Second Circuit decision demonstrates, the details of how they are implemented matter a great deal for their enforceability.

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.

If there is one constancy in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation, it is its inconsistency.

When the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was passed into law in 1991, one of its primary purposes was regulating the then-current practice of sending junk faxes. In the intervening 29 years, telecommunications technologies have dramatically changed (several times over) but the law that is the centerpiece of federal telemarketing regulations has remained largely the same.

As we find ourselves in limbo between the anticlimactic Barr Supreme Court case and the potentially momentous Facebook case, Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation continue apace. Two recent court decisions illustrate just how expensive TCPA class actions can be for defendants and how lucrative they can be for plaintiffs attorneys.

Mortgage lending giant Quicken Loans lost a motion to compel arbitration in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action. The details of the case demonstrate that a TCPA compliance program is of little use without proper understanding of how the compliance technology works.

Litigators and professional plaintiffs employ a variety of tricks in order to entrap callers into Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Do Not Call (DNC) list violations. One of the most dangerous ploys is also one of the simplest: the dual-purpose phone line.