[This piece originally appeared in Compliance Weekly.]

insideARM maintains a free TCPA resources page to provide a destination for timely and topical information on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”) that is relevant to the ARM community. This page is generously supported by Neustar. 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, a link is provided. Case information is provided by the Bedard Law Group.


The following are case highlights from May 2018 that should be interesting to members of the ARM community.

Jara v. GC Services

Venue: District Court (CA)

Decision Date: May 17, 2018

Issue: Revocation of Consent

Industry Result: Neutral

The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. At heart is the issue of whether GC Services called the plaintiffs too often to collect several debts.


Threadford v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama


District Court (AL)

Decision Date:

May 14, 2018

Issue: Sovereign Immunity

Industry Result: Positive

The plaintiff claimed both sovereign immunity (an Eleventh Amendment issue for my Constitutional Coolkids Clan) and an invasion of privacy, The Court said no.


Reyes v. BCA Financial Services

Venue: District Court (FL)

Decision Date: May 14, 2018

Issue: ATDS (Predictive Dialer)

Industry Result: Negative

Someone not-Estrellita Reyes used Estrellita Reyes's cell phone number on a medical consent form. When a collection agency used that number (eight times), Estrellita sued the agency under an old understanding of the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA.


Eisenband v. Starion Energy

Venue: District Court (FL)

Decision Date: May 11, 2018

Issue: Jurisdiction

Industry Result: Positive

The plaintiff lived, on purpose, in Palm Beach County, Florida. The defendant, Starion, says, "Starion has no real estate, offices, equipment, bank accounts, investments, or employees located in the state of Florida."


Barton v. Credit One Financial

Venue: District Court (OH)

Decision Date: April 27, 2018

Issue: Consent

Industry Result: Positive

A consumer agreed to the terms and conditions of his credit card application – including that he could be called on the only number he gave – and then tried to sue because he didn't like that he could be called on the only number he gave.