The Telecom Digest
Saturday, March 11, 2023
|
The Telecom Digest |
|
|---|---|---|
| Copyright © 2023 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| Message-ID: <20230309212450.GA1720117@telecomdigest.us> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 16:24:50 -0500 From: Bill Horne <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com> Subject: Number Of Calls Informs Standing, Eleventh Circuit Says by John W. McGuinness (Los Angeles) and Cody A. DeCamp (Los Angeles) A district court erred when it failed to ascertain the number of telephone calls allegedly received by the plaintiffs in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined. A group of 16 individuals filed suit against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, claiming that they received calls made using an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) in violation of the TCPA. https://www.mondaq.com/article/news/1290090?q=1803232&n=722&tp=2&tlk=8&lk=23 -- (Please remove QRM for direct replies) |
| Message-ID: <20230309215153.GA1720650@telecomdigest.us> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 16:51:53 -0500 From: Bill Horne <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com> Subject: Northern District Of California Doubles Down On Dismissal Of Wiretapping Claims Under State Privacy Law By J. Colin Knisely (Philadelphia) and Michael Zullo (Philadelphia) On the heels of holding that defendants' use of session replay software did not constitute a violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Judge William Alsup in Williams v. What If Holdings LLC and ActiveProspect Inc. has now denied the plaintiff's request for leave to amend. In doing so, the court reaffirmed its previous holding that the plaintiff's allegations only established that ActiveProspect's use of session replay software functioned as a tool that supported What If's management of its own website data, and not as a means of eavesdropping and aggregating information for ActiveProspect's own purposes. https://www.mondaq.com/article/news/1288966?q=1803232&n=722&tp=5&tlk=2&lk=33 -- (Please remove QRM for direct replies) |
| Message-ID: <tudieb$1irij$1@dont-email.me> Date: 9 Mar 2023 16:18:02 -0500 From: Bill Horne <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com> Subject: Mini-TCPA Laws You Should Know And That May Be Coming Soon In 2023 by Brooks R. Brown (Boston) , W. Kyle Tayman (Washington), Christina L. Hennecken (Boston) and Briana Adams-Seaton (New York) In April 2021, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Facebook v. Duguid narrowly construing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's (TCPA) "automatic telephone dialing system" definition. In so doing, the Supreme Court effectively brought an end to the flood of TCPA lawsuits alleging violations of the statute's restrictions on calls and texts made with an autodialer. Just two months later, however, Florida responded to the Supreme Court's decision by enacting a "mini-TCPA" that broadly (and vaguely) restricts certain telemarketing calls and texts made to Florida residents (and other persons in Florida) using an "automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers." The effect in Florida has been a substantial uptick in lawsuits targeting allegedly unwanted telemarketing calls and texts made with an autodialer. Now, more states are following Florida's lead of tightening telemarketing restrictions by enacting or proposing their own mini-TCPA laws. Companies engaged in telemarketing by call or text in any of these states should be aware of these new and emerging laws. As detailed below, these laws impose stricter prohibitions than the TCPA, contain the same (or greater) penalties for violations (e.g., $500 to $1,500 per violative call or text), and employ potentially broader definitions of what constitutes an autodialer, as the Florida mini-TCPA does. As more states follow and expound on Florida's lead, there is likely to be increased mini-TCPA litigation at the state level. https://www.mondaq.com/article/news/1289988?q=1803232&n=722&tp=2&tlk=6&lk=21 -- (Please remove QRM for direct replies) |
| Helpful Links | |
|---|---|
| Telecom Digest Archives | The Telecom Digest FAQ |