Listen to the story here.
Editor's note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved.
I invented this argument years ago—I promise, I did—but it was made popular by the second circuit in Reyes v. Lincoln Financial Services: a consent provision contained in a written consumer contract cannot be unilaterally revoked anymore than any other term in a binding contract. So although TCPA consent can be revoked in most contexts, it cannot be revoked where it is provided by contract.
The Eleventh Circuit has twice recognized that consent can be revoked in the absence of a contract but on Friday it clarified—as predicted—that contractual consent cannot be unilaterally revoked, following Reyes. The case is: Medley v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 18-13841 (11th Cir. May 1, 2020).
The holding: “common law contract principles do not allow unilateral revocation of consent when given as consideration in a bargained-for agreement.”
This follows huge rulings out of the Eleventh Circuit narrowing TCPA claims by refusing to adopt a broad reading of ATDS and on Article III Standing. The TCPA cash cow is now officially hamburger in the Sunshine State folks.
More analysis to come.
Trying to keep up with the status of TCPA consent? The iA Case Law Tracker can help you do that in less time than it takes to pour your morning cup of coffee.