Court Allows One Call TCPA Class Action to Proceed
If there is one constancy in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation, it is its inconsistency.
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.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a public notice yesterday clarifying the scope of the commission’s March 20, 2020 Declaratory Ruling about the “emergency purposes” exemption to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) as it pe
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.