On October 4, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation. This case will address a critical question that has been a point of contention among various circuit courts: whether the Hobbs Act, which limits judicial review of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “final orders” to appellate courts, requires district courts to accept the FCC legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular FCC order interpreting the TCPA.
As we discussed in a prior post, the case arises out of allegedly unsolicited advertisements sent via fax in violation of the TCPA. The crux of the issue was whether the FCC Amerifactors decision required individualized inquiries to determine whether class members received the advertisements through online fax services or traditional analog fax machines. In Amerifactors, the FCC ruled that an online fax service that receives faxes as emails does not fall under the TCPA’s definition of a “telephone facsimile machine.” The district court ultimately held that it must treat the Amerifactors ruling as authoritative and decertified the plaintiffs’ class because they could not distinguish between faxes sent by an online service and those sent manually.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the Hobbs Act’s exclusive jurisdiction provision forecloses a federal district court from considering whether the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA is wrong. This decision highlighted a split among federal courts, as the Fourth Circuit had determined that district courts should decide how much deference, if any, to give to an FCC ruling.
Our Take:
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in this case is a pivotal moment for the interpretation of the Hobbs Act and its application to FCC orders. The question of whether district courts must treat FCC interpretations of the TCPA as binding in private litigation has significant implications. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could open the door for district courts to independently interpret the TCPA, creating even more uncertainty following the Loper-Bright decision, discussed here.
