TCPA

A Supreme Court decision on June 20 has significantly reshaped how courts may interpret future Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cases by fundamentally altering the way in which courts construe FCC orders and rules. This article discusses the case, its implications, and what practitioners should argue in litigation moving forward.

This article summarizes current Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and robocall developments, including the status of three important FCC final rules, a proposed FCC rule, an enforcement action concerning spoofing of caller IDs, and a pending Supreme Court case concerning the precedential value of FCC interpretations—all of which could significantly affect TCPA litigation.

This article sets out practice implications of three recent Supreme Court cases, two FCC rulings, and other court decisions dramatically reshaping TCPA litigation: Article III standing; the autodialer definition; constitutionality of TCPA claims arising prior to an unconstitutional provision’s severance; general limits on prerecorded calls; new limits on debt collector-recorded calls to residential lines; and seller liability for “do-not-call” rule violations.

2016 was an active year for changes concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). This article highlights the following changes, with more detail found in NCLC’s Federal Deception Law ch. 6, as most recently updated online on January 6, 2017 (The chapter has now been updated online again on February 6, 2017, including a new January 30, 2017 Ninth Circuit decision in Van Patten v...

2017 saw hundreds of new decisions and FCC actions interpreting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which provides significant statutory damages for unwanted calls, texts, and faxes. This article outlines the areas where there has been the most significant case law and FCC activity in 2017. All links are to NCLC’s Federal Deception Law Chapter 6—a detailed analysis of all significant...

This article provides a summary and link to a Public Justice paper that debunks claims (successful in two district courts and popping up everywhere now) that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is unconstitutional as applied to all robocalls from 2015 to July 6, 2020.

Significant decisions on the TCPA—allowing $500 damages ($1500 if willful or knowing) for each unwanted robocall or robotext—pour in almost daily. This article summarizes the very latest developments on the definition of “autodialer” (the key TCPA issue today), the limited impact of arbitration requirements, revocation of consumer consent, and more.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation is one of today’s hottest areas and this article provides new practice tips in bringing suits involving robocalls and junk faxes, based on the very latest case rulings and expert advice.

On Tuesday, January 20, 2016, in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, ___ U.S. ___, 2016 WL 228345 (Jan. 20, 2016), the Supreme Court held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer did not moot a TCPA class action. (A separate article will discuss the Rule 68 holding.) The decision includes several important TCPA holdings as well. Chapter 6 of NCLC’s Federal Deception Law (2d ed. 2016, to be released in early...

The D.C. Circuit’s March decision in ACA International v. FCC is sure to be raised in any TCPA case involving unwanted calls and texts to cellphones. This article analyzes what the decision really means and also examines a number of other important 2018 circuit court TCPA rulings.