insideARM maintains a
free TCPA
resources page to provide the ARM
community a destination for timely and topical information on the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”). This page is generously supported by LexisNexis. See the page here or find it in our main navigation bar from any page on
insideARM.
The cornerstone of the page
is a chart of significant TCPA cases. Click on the link in the chart for
the complete text of the decision. Where insideARM has already published a
story on the case, we provide a link. Case information and analysis is
provided by the Bedard Law Group.
TCPA cases in
August 2016 brought both positive and negative outcomes for the ARM industry
Romero v.
Department Stores National Bank
The gist: The plaintiff
alleged that the defendant called her hundreds of times using an automated
dialing telephone system about a delinquent credit card bill. The District
Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the plaintiff’s TCPA
claims due to a lack of standing.
The gist: The
defendant placed a number of calls to the plaintiff instead of calling a
customer, when they had no consent to call the plaintiff. The District Court of
Kansas ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to some damages, but declined the
plaintiff’s request to treble the amount of damages awarded.
The gist: The plaintiff
alleged that the defendant called her repeatedly on her cell phone without her
consent using an automated dialer in order to collect on a debt she did not
owe. The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the
plaintiff’s motion for class certification and the defendant’s motion to
dismiss the case, while granting the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration
and stay the proceedings.
Aranda v. Caribbean
Cruise Line, Inc.
The gist: Plaintiffs
allege that the defendant placed millions of calls to consumers who did not
consent to receive them. The District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois denied the defendant’s motion to decertify the classes in the case.
Hewlett v.
Consolidated World Travel
The gist: The
plaintiff alleged that the defendant called the plaintiff’s cell phone “nearly
daily” without her consent using an automatic telephone dialing system, and
continued to call after she requested for the calls to stop. The District Court
for the Eastern District of California denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss
the case.
The gist: The
plaintiffs allege the defendant called their cell phone number without their
consent using automated dialing equipment. In this case, however, the defendant
was calling about a legitimate debt owed by the plaintiffs. The District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee granted the defendant’s motion to compel
arbitration in the case.
