InfoBytes Blog

11th Circuit affirms no unilateral revocation under TCPA

On May 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the TCPA does not permit a consumer (plaintiff) to later revoke her consent to be contacted by telephone when the consent was given in a bargained-for contract. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant that provided express authorization to be contacted by the defendant through the use of an automated telephone dialing system to recover unpaid obligations. The plaintiff’s attorneys later sent the defendant faxes to, among other things, revoke the plaintiff’s consent to be contacted. Notwithstanding those faxes, the defendant continued to place calls to collect debt, and the plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the TCPA, among other allegations. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, ruling that the automated calls did not violate the TCPA because consent cannot be unilaterally revoked when provided as part of a bargained-for contract. 

On appeal, the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment order on the plaintiff’s TCPA claims because “common law contract principles do not allow unilateral revocation of consent when given as consideration in a bargained-for agreement.” Referencing a decision issued in 2017 concerning the same situation (covered by InfoBytes here), the appellate court wrote, “[w]e, like the Second Circuit, are also unpersuaded by the argument that unilateral revocation of consent given in a legally binding agreement is permissible because it comports with the consumer-protection purposes of the TCPA.”

Courts Appellate Eleventh Circuit TCPA Automated Telephone Dialing Debt Collection

Massachusetts high court finds retailer violated state law with robocall collection efforts

On June 25, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a national retailer’s use of an automated dialing service to contact debtors without leaving voicemail messages constitutes a violation of the state’s debt collection regulation. According to the opinion, after a consumer defaulted on the retailer’s branded debit card, the retailer began contacting the consumer more than twice a week using an automated dialing service. The retailer did not leave voice messages. In July 2015, the consumer filed suit against the retailer for violating the state debt collection regulation for calling more than two times in a seven-day period in order to collect a debt. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the retailer, holding that the automated phone calls were not “communications” under the state regulations and there was no indication the consumer answered and heard the prerecorded message more than twice a week. In reversing the lower court’s decision, the state supreme court rejected the retailer’s argument that it did not “initiate” communications because it was using an automated dialing system and also rejected the argument that the calls did not constitute “communications” because they did not convey any information if the consumer did not answer. The court unanimously held that the retailer’s arguments are contrary to the purpose of the regulation and that the “regulation applies to any attempted telephonic communication. . .in an effort to collect a debt, so long as, as here, the creditor is able to reach the debtor or to leave a voicemail message for the debtor.”

Courts State Issues Automated Telephone Dialing Debt Collection Robocalls