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
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.
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.
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.