By

Eric S. Mattson

08 July 2020

Two Rulings in Two Weeks on the TCPA’s Autodialer Restrictions

The last two weeks have brought two important (although unrelated) rulings on the TCPA’s Autodialer Restrictions.  First, on June 25, the Federal Communications Commission limited the applicability of the autodialer restrictions in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the “TCPA”), to an emerging texting technology. Second, less … Read More

EmailShare
01 August 2018

New Case Sheds Further Light on the Definition of Autodialer under the TCPA

Ever since the D.C. Circuit struck down the FCC’s overbroad rule defining “auto-dialers” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, district courts have debated the scope of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling: Did it effectively strike down earlier FCC pronouncements on what qualifies as an auto-dialer? In a carefully reasoned opinion, … Read More

EmailShare
23 May 2018

FCC Asks for Input After ACA International v. FCC

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) bar has been reeling ever since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned a couple of key Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules in ACA International v. FCC, including the FCC’s overbroad interpretation of the definition of an autodialer. However, the ruling … Read More

EmailShare
20 March 2018

D.C. Circuit Strikes Down Some Rules Governing Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Upholds Others

On March 16, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a long-awaited ruling on a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 order that expanded the scope of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). In ACA International v. FCC, No. 15-1211, the court invalidated a … Read More

EmailShare
21 August 2017

Ninth Circuit Issues Long-Awaited Decision on Standing After Remand From Supreme Court

On August 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit again addressed whether a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) constitutes a sufficiently concrete and particularized harm to satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement. In Robins v. Spokeo, No. 11-56843, the court found for a second time that plaintiff Thomas Robins had
Read More
EmailShare
XSLT Plugin by BMI Calculator