Technology, Communications & Media

All too often, plaintiffs alleging TCPA violations premised on faxes take the position that although a fax is not an advertisement on its face, it clears the advertisement hurdle because of an underlying profit motive. That’s a no-go confirmed the Third Circuit. Mauthe v. Optum Inc., No. 18-2894, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15742 (3d Cir. May 28, 2019).

On May 23, the Senate passed the TRACED Act (S. 151) by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 98-1. This bill, led by Sens. John Thune (R-SD) and Ed Markey (D-MA), and supported by all 50 state attorneys general, would force phone companies to identify spam calls to consumers, extend the statute of limitations to prosecute those illegally robocalling consumers, and increase fines for robocalls to up to $10,000 per illegal call. In a statement following its passage, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai praised the legislation saying, “This is a vital partnership in the fight against unwanted robocalls and one we already are working hard at. It’s important that federal and state partners work together – and engage productively with private stakeholders – to address this important consumer protection priority.”

This TCPA Digest covers congressional bills to combat illegal robocalls, TCPA matters at the FCC, and a 4th Circuit ruling that voided the TCPA's federal debt-collection exemption.

Read about the Fourth Circuit’s American Association of Political Consultants decision, which struck down the federal debt collection exemption to the TCPA.

Following last month’s letter from the attorney generals of all 50 states, Congress has continued to push forward on robocall legislation. On April 3, the Senate Commerce Committee held a markup, which featured the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act.

This TCPA Digest covers comments on FCC proposals to modify the Truth in Caller ID rules, how the TCPA could impact the 2020 Census, and congressional hearings and legislation about robocalls.

The FCC continues to review comments and meet with parties in a variety of TCPA-related proceedings, but the agency did not vote on any TCPA items at the Commission’s April open meeting.

This month we consider who qualifies as a “sender” under the Junk Faxes Rule, provide an update on the HANGUP and TRACED bills, and review a Whole Foods case that asks whether the Bristol-Meyers ruling applies to class actions.

TCPA Class Action Update: Whole Foods Seeks Guidance from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit: Does Bristol-Myers Apply to Class Actions?

TCPA Regulatory Update: Who Qualifies as a “Sender” under the Junk Faxes Rule?

TCPA Legislative Update: TRACED and HANGUP Acts Target Robocalls

Do you manufacture, import, or market personal hygiene and wellness devices sold in drugstores? If so, you may be focused on U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compliance, but may not have considered the requirements of another Federal regulatory agency: the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Manufacturing, importing, and/or marketing non-compliant personal hygiene, wellness and similar devices may violate the FCC’s rules.

This article covers an immediate FAA rule change requiring markings for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS, commonly known as drones). Beginning February 25, 2019, every UAS must have its registration number displayed and visible on the external surface of the aircraft.

Read about two FAA draft proposals concerning the commercial operations of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, or drones, and how they could impact the industry and how drones are used.

This alert provides a list of 10 important new directives to the FAA that should soon allow drones to be used for a broader array of commercial operations, including package deliveries, and hasten the integration of UAS into national airspace.

The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) is busy evaluating scores of comments and reply comments it received in several ongoing TCPA proceedings in the past month.

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia released its highly anticipated decision in ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, courts have been addressing issues raised in that case. We previously summarized the opinion — which raises four issues, one of which is what constitutes an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”).

The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is reconsidering several issues central to TCPA liability, including what equipment constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system ((“ATDS”) and who the “called party” is when a wireless number has been reassigned.

Our previous post discussed the decision in Marshall v. CBE Group, Inc., which completely rejected the FCC’s broad interpretation of an ATDS and found in favor of the defendant. Since then, another district court in the Ninth Circuit has followed suit, but three others in the Eleventh Circuit have concluded that the FCC’s 2003 Order survives ACA Int’l. It could behoove some TCPA defendants to seek stays while this circuit split is sorted out or until after the FCC clarifies its position on the ATDS issue following ACA Int’l.