Popular Topics
All Topics
- .Com Disclosure Guide
- 140conf
- 140conf Long Island
- 140confLI
- 47 USC 230
- AAA
- ACI 2017
- Ads
- Advance Registration
- Advertising
- Advertising Agencies
- Advertising Agency
- Advertising Disclosure
- Advertising Industry
- Advertising Injury
- Advertising Law
- Advertising Practice
- advertising self-regulation
- Advertising Self-Regulatory Council
- Advertising Software
- Advertising, Marketing & Promotions News
- Advertorials
- Advisory
- Affiliate Marketing
- Affiliate Program
- All Natural
- Amazon
- Amazon Silk
- Amazon Tax
- Amazon.com
- Amendments
- American Advertising Federation
- American Bar Association
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Android
- Annual Audit
- Annual Fee
- anti-fraud
- App Developers
- Apple
- Apps
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Clause
- Arbitration Rules
- Ashley Madison
- ASRC
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
- ATDS
- Attorney
- Attorney General
- Audio Beacons
- Augme
- Auto-dial
- Automatic Renewal
- Automobiles
- BBB AdTruth
- Bead Art Playsets
- Behavioral Advertising
- Best Lawyers
- Blackberry
- Bloggers and Influencers
- Bloomberg BNA
- Brain Training
- Branding
- Brands
- Breach
- Burden of Proof
- Business Law
- Business, Marketing & Promotions News
- Buyers
- California
- California Auto-Renewal Task Force
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
- California’s Automatic Renewal Law
- California’s Unfair Competition Law
- Campaigns
- CAN-Spam
- Cancer Fund of America
- cannabis
- Caribbean & Latin American Corporate Counsel Summit 2017
- CARU's Guidelines
- CAS
- Cash prizes
- CASL
- CBBB
- CBD
- Celebrity Images
- Cell Phone Applications
- Cell phones
- CFPB
- CGMP
- Chambers 2017 USA Guide
- Chantal Tode
- Charge Pop-ups
- Charity Fundraising
- Charity Regulators
- Children's Advertising
- Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU)
- children's marketing
- Children's Privacy
- Civil Penalties
- Class Action
- Class Action Lawsuit
- Class Certification
- Clean Diesel
- Cognitive Claims
- Colorado
- Commerce Department
- Commercial Advertising
- Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA)
- Communications Decency Act
- compliance
- conference
- Consumer Complaints
- Consumer Complaints List
- Consumer Contracts
- Consumer Data
- Consumer Fraud
- consumer health guidelines
- Consumer Privacy
- Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights
- Consumer Protection
- consumer protection laws
- Consumer Sentinel Network
- Contract
- COPPA
- COPPA FTC Olshan Advertising Marketing Promotions Privacy
- Copyright Act
- Copyright Alert System
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Infringement Abroad
- Copyright, Trademark and Other Intellectual Property
- Corporate Law
- Council of Better Business Bureau
- Counterclaims
- Court Decisions
- COVID-19
- Cramming
- Credit Card Payment Surcharges
- Crowdfunding
- Cryptocurrency
- cybersecurity
- D.C. Circuit Court
- Daily Fantasy Sports Contests
- data breach
- Data Broker
- Data Collection Practices
- Data Protection
- Data Security
- Data Transfers
- Debt collectors
- Deceptive Advertising
- Deceptive Pricing
- Deceptive Tracking
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Labor
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- dietary supplements
- Digital
- Digital Advertising
- Digital Media
- Direct listings
- Direct Marketers
- Direct marketing programs
- Direct response marketing
- DirectTV
- Disclosure
- Disclosure Obligations
- Disclosure Rules
- Discounts
- DMA
- DMCA
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- DOJ
- Domain Extensions
- Domino's Pizza
- Dot Com Disclosures
- DPPA
- DraftKings
- Drawing By Chance
- Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act
- Emissions Testing
- endorsement
- Enforcement Action
- Enhanced Ads
- Entry Fee
- EPA
- Epic
- Ethics
- EU Commission
- EU-US Privacy Shield
- European Commission
- European Court of Justice (ECJ)
- European Union
- European Union registration holders
- European Union Trademark
- Exchange listing
- Ezor
- Factory outlets
- Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
- Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- False Advertising
- FanDuel
- Fantasy Contests Act
- Fantasy Sports
- Fantasy Sports Operators
- Farm Bill
- fashion law
- Fax broadcsters
- Faxes
- FCC
- FCC Developments
- FCC Solicited Fax Rule
- FDA
- FDCA
- Federal Laws & Regulations
- Federal Overtime Regulations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Final Rule
- FIPP
- First Amendment
- Fit Products
- Fit Tea
- Florida
- Force Majeure
- Fraud
- FTC
- FTC Act
- FTC Guidance
- FTC restitution
- FTC’s Jewelry Guides
- Gambling
- Gambling Laws
- Game Promotions
- GDPR
- General Data Protection Regulation
- Geo-targeted Advertising
- Georgia
- Guide
- HARO
- Health-related Mobile Apps
- Health-related Products
- Healthy
- HIPAA
- History Sniffing
- HitPath
- Homestead Laws
- HTC
- Hurricane
- IAB
- ICANN
- illegal content
- Illegal Gambling
- Illinois
- IMDb
- Influencer Marketing
- Injury in Fact
- Insider Trading
- Inspection Resources
- Insurance Company
- Insurance Coverage
- INTA
- Intellectual Property
- Internet and Privacy Law
- iOS
- Iowa
- IP Awareness Assessment Tool
- IPOs
- Jeff Pulver
- Jewelry
- JOLT
- Jurisdiction
- Kindle Fire
- Lanham Act
- Law
- Law Enforcement
- Law Review Article
- law school
- Laws
- Leading Lawyers
- Lee Bogner
- Legal 500 United States 2017
- Legislation
- letter of consent
- Licensing Fees
- Lily Robotics
- List managers
- Litigation
- Lumosity
- Lumosity ads
- Lumosity games
- Lustigman Firm
- Luxury Daily
- made in the usa
- Magazine publishers
- Mail Order Sales Rule
- Manufacture
- Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (“MSRP”)
- Marden-Kane
- Marketing
- Marketing & Promotions News
- Marketing and Advertising Law
- Marketshare
- Mass texts
- Material Disclosures
- Mc Donalds
- Media and Entertainment
- Media Companies
- Microsoft
- MLM
- Mobile Financial Services
- Mobile In-app Charges
- Mobile Marketer
- Mobile Marketing
- Mobile Payment Systems
- Mobile Payment Systems Security Programs
- Mortgage Bankers Association
- Mortgage Investors
- NAD
- NARB
- Native Advertising
- Native Advertising Guidelines
- Nautilus, Inc.
- Network Advertising Initiative
- New Jersey
- New Jersey Supreme Court
- New York
- New York Law Journal
- New York SHIELD Act
- Nomi
- Non-commerical Calls
- Non-profit Organization
- Notice
- Nutrient Content
- NY Attorney General
- objective consumer harm
- Off-label Prescriptions
- Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
- Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
- Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC)
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Olshan
- Olshan Grundman
- Olshan News
- Online Advertising
- Online Apps
- Online Cancellation
- Online Contracts
- Online Discount Pricing
- Online Entertainment Co
- Online Retail
- Online Reviews
- Online Tracking
- Online travel agencies
- Overstock
- Paid Promotions
- pandemic
- Patents
- Payment Methods
- Penny Auction
- Performance Marketing
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Pet Care
- Peter Shankman
- Pharmaceutical Advertising
- Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
- pre-orders
- Pre-recorded Message
- Price Match Guarantee
- Pricing Guides
- Pricing Practices
- Privacy
- Privacy Act
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Practices
- Privacy Shield
- Pro-Consumer
- Products
- Professional Association for Customer Engagement (PACE)
- Promotion
- Proposed Rulemaking
- Public Database
- Publication of Age
- Publisher Magazine
- Q&A
- RCT Requirements
- Real Estate
- Real-estate-advertising
- Reasonableness
- Registration
- Regulations
- Resale Value
- Restrictions
- retail
- Retail Stores
- Revisions
- Risk
- Robocalls
- Roundtable
- Safe Harbor
- Sales
- Sales Practices
- Sales Tax
- Sandy
- SDNY
- SEC
- SEC disclosure
- SEC disgorgement
- SEC Form 10
- Section 17600 of the Business and Professions Code
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities Act Section 17(b)
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- self-regulatory
- Sellers
- Service-Mark Infringement
- Settlement
- Sex Offenders
- SilverPush Apps
- Skill Contest
- Skin Care Products
- Smartphone
- Social Media
- Social Media Accounts
- Social Media Marketing
- Social Media Posts
- Social Networking
- South Dakota
- Southern District of Florida
- Spam
- Special Olympics
- Spotify
- State Law
- Statute of Limitations
- Subscribers' privacy rights
- Subscription Arrangements
- substantiation rules
- Super Lawyers
- Supreme Court
- Sweeping
- Sweepstakes Law
- Sweeptstakes Contest
- symposium
- Tasty
- TCCWNA
- TCPA
- TCPA Appeals
- TCPA Claim
- TCPA Class Actions
- TCPA Lawsuit
- TCPA Liability
- TCPA Regulation
- TCPA Ruling
- Tech Companies
- Tech Day New York 2017
- Telecom Law
- Telemarketers
- Telemarketing
- Telemarketing Calls
- Telemarketing Law
- Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR)
- Telephone Consumer Act
- Terms & Conditions
- Text Message Ads
- Text Messages
- Text Messengers
- Textile Fiber Products Identification Act
- The 2017 ANA/BAA 39th Marketing Law Conference: Breakthrough: Legal Strategies for Dynamic Businesses
- The Americans with Disabilities Act
- The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program
- The Kardashians
- The Pennsylvania Record
- Third Circuit Court
- Throttling
- Top Ten Complaints
- Trademark Clearinghouse
- Trademark Protection
- Trademark Rights
- Trademarks
- Transactions
- Transnational Criminal Organization (TCO
- Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty & Notice Act
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- Unauthorized Data
- United Kingdom
- Unsolicited Advertisement
- Unsubscribe Act of 2019
- US Supreme Court
- Use Tax
- Velti
- Vermont
- Vermont House Bill 593
- Vicarious Liability
- Violations
- virtual reality
- Wal-Mart v. Dukes
- Warning Letter
- Washington D.C.
- Washington Law
- Washington’s Consumer Protection Act
- WBO
- Web Agreements
- Web Browsers
- webinar
- webOS
- Websites
- Western District of Washington
- White House
- World Boxing Organization
- World Trademark Review
Recent Posts
- Andrew Lustigman Quoted in Law360 on the FTC’s Ability to Seek Monetary Restitution
- Olshan Branding Management and Protection Attorneys Present Webinar on Marketing in the COVID-19 Era to the Bronx Third Avenue BID
- The Legal 500 Publishes “United States: Pharmaceutical Advertising” Q&A by Lustigman and Spina
- New York Enacts Comprehensive Automatic Renewal Law Modeled After California Law
- Olshan’s Advertising Practice Provides Pro Bono Support to COVID-19 and Racial Equality Fundraiser
- Law360 Publishes Article by Scott Shaffer on Recent TCPA Rulings that Benefit Companies Facing Robocall Claims
- Another Court of Appeals Rules Against the FTC on Disgorgement Issue
- Webinar - Retail Marketing Compliance in Post-COVID Era
- Sweepstakes and Promotions During a Pandemic
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
Contact Us
212.451.2258
Federal Trial Court Rules Against Enforcement of TCPA Claims from 2015-2020
Ruling could have broad implications on thousands of pending cases
A federal district court has ruled that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is unenforceable for violations occurring between November 2015 and July 6, 2020. The trial court in Creasy v. Charter Communications, in the Eastern District of Louisiana on September 28, 2020, dismissed all asserted TCPA violations alleged to have occurred before July 6, 2020 because a portion of the TCPA was unconstitutional until the Supreme Court “fixed” it on that date.
In Creasy, the co-plaintiffs claimed they received 130 robocalls and automated text messages in violation of the TCPA because they had not consented to such communications. The defendant, Charter Communications, filed a motion to dismiss based on the Supreme Court’s holding in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (decided on July 6, 2020). In Barr, a portion of the TCPA was declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it allowed the government to make robocalls to collect debts, but no one else. The Supreme Court “repaired” the TCPA by severing the government’s exemption and making robocalls illegal for everyone—the government included—commencing on July 6, 2020.
Charter Communications argued that if the TCPA was unconstitutional between 2015 and 2020, then plaintiffs cannot enforce it for any calls made during that period. (The government exception to the robocall ban was added to the TCPA in November 2015.) Judge Martin Feldman agreed with Charter Communications and dismissed Creasy’s claims for 129 of the 130 calls.
Judge Feldman wrote, “in the years in which § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) [of the TCPA] permitted robocalls of one category of content (government-debt collection) while prohibiting robocalls of all other categories of content, the entirety of the provision was, indeed, unconstitutional. That fact deprives the Court of jurisdiction over much of this action … any added likelihood that defendants may evade liability for robocalls that Congress would have preferred to ban from 2015 to 2020 is the unfortunate price of the Court’s enforcement of a constitutionally dictated result.”
The only call for which Charter Communication faced liability is the last one, which was allegedly made on July 11, 2020, a few days after the TCPA was “repaired.” Charter Communications sought to have the claim for the remaining call dismissed on other grounds, which were denied by the trial court.
Siding again with Charter Communications, Judge Feldman temporarily stayed further proceedings in this case in order to allow the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue in yet another case, Facebook v. Duguid, in which Facebook is challenging the way federal courts have expanded the TCPA’s definition of an illegal autodialer.
TAKEAWAY: The question begged by the Creasy ruling is whether it will be followed by courts around the nation that are considering the thousands of TCPA claims arising between November 2015 and July 2020. It seems likely, given that the Supreme Court has spoken on the unconstitutionality of the government exception to the robocall ban. A definitive answer could come in early 2021 when the Supreme Court decides Facebook v. Duguid, which is scheduled to be argued in November. Based on the recent passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it seems more likely that the increasingly conservative Supreme Court will limit the reach of the TCPA to the statute’s exact wording and no further. While the Creasy ruling is not binding on other federal courts, it is well reasoned and certainly worth considering. If your business is facing a TCPA claim for the period from November 2015 through July 2020, you should consult an experienced TCPA attorney to see if the Creasy ruling affects the claim.