Supreme Court Sides with Consumer on TCPA Case Campbell-Ewald v Gomez in 6-3 Decision

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

In the TCPA case of Campbell-Ewald Co. v Gomez, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of the consumer.

We had reported on this case back in November of 2015, where Daniel Blynn of Venable, LLC, laid out the facts of the case:

The plaintiff sued Campbell-Ewald, a U.S. Navy contractor hired to provide “multimedia recruiting campaign” services, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) after he received an unsolicited text message from Campbell-Ewald in 2006. Campbell-Ewald admitted fault and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, offered a full settlement of $1,503 to the plaintiff, slightly more than three times the maximum award allowed under the TCPA. But, there is a wrinkle – the plaintiff refused the offer of judgment. That brings us to the Supreme Court, which is considering the following question: “Does a case become moot when a plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief for his claim?”

We appear to now have our answer: It’s a 6-3 “no.” Per the Court (via Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s majority opinion), “Campbell’s settlement bid and Rule 68 offer of judgment, once rejected, had no continuing efficacy. Absent Gomez’s acceptance, Campbell’s settlement offer remained only a proposal, binding neither Campbell nor Gomez. Having rejected Campbell’s settlement bid, and given Campbell’scontinuing denial of liability, Gomez gained no entitlement to the relief Campbell previously offered.”

Chief Justice Roberts countered: “The majority is correct that because Gomez did not accept Campbell’s settlement, it is a ‘legal nullity’ as a matter of contract law. The question, however, is not whether there is a contract; it is whether there is a case or controversy under Article III. If the defendant is willing to give the plaintiff everything he asks for, there is no case or controversy to adjudicate, and the lawsuit is moot.”

insideARM will have continued, in-depth analysis coverage of this case, and what it means for the industry, in the coming days.

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in Accounts Receivable Management, Collection Laws & Regulations, Collection Laws and Regulations, Debt Collection News, Featured Post, TCPA .

×
Subscribe to our email newsletters

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

  • avatar Connie Hartmann says:

    To be clear, Chief Justice Roberts issued a dissenting opinion from the 6-3 majority–much like Al Gore dissented with the election results in 2000. A written dissent in the judicial context is the equivalent of a concession speech: “For 16 years, ever since the Hiss case, you’ve had a lot of fun, a lot of fun. You’ve had an opportunity to attack me, and I think I’ve given as good as I’ve taken. I leave you gentlemen now and you will now write it. You will interpret it. That’s your right. But as I leave you, I want you to know – just think how much you’re going to be missing me. You don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.” – President Richard M. Nixon.

    We win some, we lose some. This one, sadly, we lost.

  • avatar nascar says:

    Don’t shed too many tears. You’ll need to save some for Spokeo.

Leave a Reply