Court Sides with FCC on TCPA “Prior Consent” Cell Phone Case

  • 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

A U.S. District Court judge last week decided a case brought by a consumer claiming that an autodialed debt collection call to her cell phone violated the TCPA. The judge dismissed the case, ruling that by providing her cell number, she was consenting to being contacted using that method.

In a ruling in Hudson v. Sharp Healthcare, Judge Michael Anello – in the Southern District of California – determined that providing a cell phone number as the sole point of contact does constitute prior express consent under the TCPA, even if an autodialer is used to place the call.

The plaintiff in the case, and her minor child, received medical care at Sharp in September 2012. While the child was covered, the plaintiff’s healthcare coverage (unbeknownst to her) had lapsed.

During admission, the plaintiff provided her cell phone number as the sole point of contact. In addition, she signed paperwork that expressly consented to being contacted by Sharp should her bill fall into arrears.

So when Hudson fell behind on her payment, Sharp used an autodialer to contact her cell phone. The plaintiff filed a TCPA lawsuit in August 2013. Sharp moved for summary judgment, which Judge Anello granted on June 25.

In her arguments, Hudson relied in part on the controversial Mais decision last year in a district court in Florida. That case disregarded a Declaratory Ruling from the FCC, made at the request of ACA International, by finding that providing a cell number does not constitute prior express consent under the TCPA.

Anello directly addressed Mais, noting, “Mais is viewed as an outlier decision and is not otherwise binding on this Court…In line with other courts in this district, this Court treats the FCC Orders as binding.”

In a January 2008 ruling, the FCC determined that autodialed and prerecorded calls made to wireless numbers provided by the called party in connection with an existing debt are made with the “express prior consent” by the called party. The Mais decision is the only high-profile decision to go against that ruling. It is currently being challenged on appeal in the Eleventh Circuit.

 

  • 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 Collection Laws and Regulations, Debt Collection, Featured Post, Medical Debt Collection, Medical Receivables, Revenue Cycle Management, 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 ryon gambill says:

    It’s about time

  • avatar Just That says:

    How about that? A judged that looked at the information in front of him and used common sense. It’s only a matter of time before the Feds are forced to make a sweeping change that allows for calls to cell phones from automated dialers. Sure no one goes into debt intentionally. Life happens. But if you provided that cell phone number on a credit app or loan app then you should not be allowed to clog a the legal system because someone called your precious phone.

  • avatar Sisko says:

    For far less than the cost of a lawyer, the consumer could have simply changed her cell phone number. I shall forever be amazed by the extent to which some debtors blame their creditor in an effort to avoid payment.

Leave a Reply