In a well-reasoned order, the court in Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc. has denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The District Court for the Southern District of California reached several decisions in this case that could be very useful for other businesses defending themselves from similar TCPA lawsuits.
Given the recent July 10 FCC ruling, it is no surprise that this year’s PACE leadership summit in Washington D.C. focused primarily on the TCPA. Government guest speakers included FCC Commissioner Michael O’Reilly, who dissented from the FCC’s June ruling, and FTC Director of Consumer Protection Jessica Rich.
It seems like almost every week businesses are faced with growing costs in keeping their telemarketing campaigns compliant. Fortunately, the FTC has decided not to increase the price for subscribing to the national do not call registry for the FY 2016.
On September 25, 2009, Westfax, Inc. filed a petition for clarification as to whether electronic faxes are treated the same as regular faxes under the TCPA. Almost 6 years later, the FCC finally got around to responding by way of an eight page declaratory ruling.
In a somewhat unusual case the FCC has cited Lyft Inc. for failing to allow consumers to use Lyft’s services without opting in to receive autodialed texts and calls.
One New York senator apparently wants to take telemarketing enforcement to the next level.
This week, in the case of Luna v. Shac, LLC et al., the District Court for the Northern District of California issued one of its first post FCC Declaratory Ruling decisions regarding the interpretation of an ATDS under the TCPA.
Last week the FCC released a forfeiture order against Travel Club and several other related parties imposing a fine of $2,960,000. This fine was based on 185 unsolicited robocalls in violation of the TCPA (185 violations x $16,000 per violation).