Skip to main content

TCPA

Bank Hit with Near-$200,000 Judgment for TCPA Violations

The Southern District of New York Court rendered a costly judgment against the defendant in Jiminez v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 17 CV 2844-LTS-JLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203613 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2019): $197,000 for 380 calls that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Plaintiff in Holiday Message TCPA Suit Gets Caught Venue Shopping

An Arizona District Court granted a motion to have a recent Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action transferred to another district court in a case that emphasizes the important differences between different circuits with regards to TCPA case law and Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) definitions.

District Court Rules the Plaintiff Cannot Revoke Consent Through Strategies Such as the Use of a Fake British Accent

The plaintiff in Johnson v. Capital One Servs., No. 18-cv-62058, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159633 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2019) attempted a novel technique in order to provoke Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations from the defendant: trying to revoke consent by speaking with a fake British accent and telling the defendant's agent that they were calling a "wrong number." 

Two New District Court Rulings Apply Statutory Definition of ATDS

A year ago, the landmark Ninth Circuit decision in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC broadened the definition of what constitutes an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Finding the statutory definition to be vague, the court disregarded the precedent of Dominguez v.

Subscribe to TCPA