News & Analysis as of

Telecommunications Class Certification Robocalling

Troutman Pepper

Speak for Yourself: Court Denies Class Certification in TCPA Case Based on Class Members’ Potentially Mixed Reactions to Ringless...

Troutman Pepper on

On January 18, a court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case concluding that the factual issue of whether the proposed class members had suffered an...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

ATDS Sufficiently Alleged, Illinois Court Says

The use of a “STOP” notification in a text message—as well as a dedicated 1-833 toll-free number and the generic nature of the message—may indicate the use of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS), an Illinois federal...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Court Finds That Some Soundboard Calls Can Qualify As “Prerecorded Voice” Calls, At Least When They Do Not “Interact With the...

As we previously discussed, the need for clarification as to the TCPA’s treatment of outbound calls made using soundboard technology (“soundboard calls”) is particularly manifest in light of two pending petitions before the...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

“Sorry, Wrong Number”: Northern District of California Denies Certification in TCPA Class Action

As we have noted before, whether a claimant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) gave “prior express consent” to receiving communications from the defendant is frequently a critical issue (and often the only...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Van Patten V. Vertical Fitness Is No TCPA Killer

Robins Kaplan LLP on

The rise of Telephone Consumer Protection Act litigation in the past decade has been staggering. From just 14 cases in 2007, the number of TCPA-related filings has exploded to 4,860 in 2016 — a total that is expected to...more

Carlton Fields

TCPA Class Certified Based Largely on “Concrete Injury” Determination

Carlton Fields on

Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016) – which held that Article III standing requires a concrete injury, even when an injury has otherwise been established...more

6 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide