Skip to main content

Search

Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices: 12.3.3.9.5 Pain and suffering damages may be even more broadly available in UDAP cases

In a number of states, courts award pain and suffering damages in UDAP cases even where there is no physical injury or intent to deceive.266 Louisiana allows damages for mental anguish and humiliation in UDAP cases, simply as a component of actual damages.267 Thus, actual damages are recoverable for humiliation and mental anguish for the intentional filing of a suit in the wrong venue.268 Some Illinois decisions hold that emotional distress qualifi

Federal Deception Law: 7.3.6 Joint Venture, Aiding and Abetting, and Liability of Individuals, Parent Companies, Successor Corporations, and Subsidiaries

The FCC did not address joint venture liability in its 2013 DISH Network ruling.202 However, joint venture liability is entirely consistent with the common law agency principles it articulated in that ruling, so it is reasonable to conclude that a franchisor, parent company, or remote seller may be liable for TCPA violations if it is engaged in a joint venture with its franchisee, subsidiary, or dealer.203

Federal Deception Law: 7.3.7 Federal Contractors; Governmental Units and Officers

In early 2016, the Supreme Court held that although the United States and its agencies have immunity from TCPA suits,210 a federal contractor that violated the TCPA did not have derivative immunity.211 The contractor had been hired to recruit people to join the Navy. The contractor sent text messages to people who had not opted in to receive them, contrary to its agreement with the Navy.

Federal Deception Law: 7.4.3.7 Outlier Decisions

A few decisions find that recipients of unwanted calls, text messages, or faxes did not have Article III standing, but most arise under unique facts or in a unique procedural posture. In an unreported decision, Davis Neurology v. DoctorDirectory.com L.L.C.,385 the defendant removed a claim under some unidentified section of the TCPA to federal court and then argued that the federal court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff did not have Article III standing.

Federal Deception Law: 7.4.7a Traceability

The preceding sections have focused on the Article III standing requirement of a concrete injury. Another element that must be shown to establish Article III standing is that the injury the plaintiff suffered is “fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant.”460

Federal Deception Law: 7.4.8 Burden of Proof on Article III Standing

The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing.472 For a case filed in federal court, the burden of establishing standing therefore falls on the plaintiff.473 However, when a defendant removes a case from state court to federal court, it is the defendant who is invoking federal jurisdiction and thus the defendant that bears the burden of showing that the plaintiff has standing.474

Federal Deception Law: 7.5.1.2 Long-Arm Jurisdiction

A court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant that purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state—or purposefully directs its activities to residents of the forum state—where the cause of action arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.499 Directing unwanted calls to cell phone numbers with area codes assigned to a state is sufficient to allow that state to exercise personal jurisdiction over the caller and the person or entity that directed that the calls be

Federal Deception Law: 7.5.2.1 Generally

Much consumer litigation today faces questions as to whether an individual or class action can be litigated in court or whether it must be brought individually in an arbitration proceeding. Consumer approaches to challenging arbitration requirements are set out in detail in NCLC’s Consumer Arbitration Agreements.508 This subsection provides a thumbnail description of some of the ways to challenge an arbitration requirement, with special applicability to TCPA actions.

Federal Deception Law: 7.5.2.2 Is There a Binding Arbitration Agreement?

Arbitration requirements are a matter of contract, and the defendant cannot require arbitration unless it can produce an arbitration agreement binding on the plaintiff. It is not enough to allege that there is an agreement or to produce a boilerplate agreement. The defendant must produce the actual agreement consented to or otherwise binding on the plaintiff.511 The result is no different for TCPA cases.512

Federal Deception Law: 7.5.2.9 Individual Arbitration of TCPA Cases

Consumer attorneys are generally better off seeking relief in court and not in arbitration, particularly since arbitration agreements typically prohibit class arbitration. Nevertheless, if an arbitration requirement cannot be avoided or it will prove too costly to seek to defeat the requirement, a remaining avenue for relief is an individual arbitration action.

Federal Deception Law: 7.5.2.11 Mass Arbitration

Because of the difficulties involved in engaging in class arbitration or individual arbitration on behalf of many individual consumers, an increasingly utilized option is a procedure sometimes called “mass arbitration.” The practice takes its name from “mass torts,” which involves the filing of many individual personal injury complaints—often for product liability, toxic tort, or similar cases—that involve factually similar predicates but do not lend themselves to class treatment. Another name for mass arbitration is an “arbitration swarm.”

Federal Deception Law: 7.5.3.1.1 General principles in pleading TCPA claims

A TCPA complaint must plead the necessary facts to support the legal claims made,569 although it need not be pleaded with particularity.570 Including background information about the TCPA and the calling practices at issue may be helpful to the court.571 Allegations about online complaints posted by other consumers are proper because they add to the plausibility of the plaintiff’s allegations, support a claim that the viol

Federal Deception Law: 7.5.3.1.2 Allegations regarding defendant’s role

There is some authority that the complaint need not allege facts connecting the defendant to the calls in question.577 However, vague allegations that the defendant was responsible for calls are likely to be insufficient.578 In addition, some courts have gone far beyond the requirements of Rule 8, requiring elaborate allegations to rebut a potential assertion by the defendant that some other entity made the call and falsely claimed to be calling on behalf of the

Federal Deception Law: 7.5.3.1.3 Autodialer allegations

If the claim is based on the use of an autodialer, the complaint must include some specificity.587 Examples of allegations that courts have held sufficient include the defendant’s general use of an autodialer or a specific kind of autodialer, the plaintiff’s receipt of multiple scripted calls, and that the call bore telltale signs of an automated call, such as an obviously artificial voice, a message asking the consumer to press one of several keys, or a gap between picking up the call and a human being coming on the line.

Federal Deception Law: 7.5.3.1.4 Allegations that call was prerecorded

A complaint need not provide extensive information about a call to support an allegation that it was prerecorded.596 However, some courts do require more than just an allegation that it was prerecorded.597 An allegation that a call was prerecorded based on the clarity and cadence of a voice message and the absence of anything specific, such as the name of the person being called, is sufficient.