Defendant Answers TCPA Suit by Asserting It’s ‘Independently Audited’ for Compliance

Core Home Security contends that it had prior express consent of Victoria Starr-Harris and her putative class members to receive Core’ solicitations on their cellphones, said the security installation and monitoring company’s answer Wednesday (docket 0:24-cv-60250) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale to Starr-Harris’ Feb. 14 Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action (see 2402140062). That such consent “was never validly revoked,” said Core. As a matter of “business practice,” Core and its agents “only make sales calls to prospective customers who have provided prior express written consent,” said its answer. The plaintiff and her putative class members “failed to revoke that consent at any time,” it said. It contends that a Core agent named Cory phoned Starr-Harris on her cellphone, and specifically asked her: "Do we have permission to call you here, if we needed to?" She responded: "Correct, correct," according to the company. A recording of that phone call has already been produced to Starr-Harris, said its answer. Core “rigorously and in good faith” complies with all applicable state, federal and local laws and regulations concerning its calling activities, said its answer. Its business practices and procedures, including opt-in mechanisms, “have been independently audited for TCPA compliance,” and those practices and procedures “have been found to be in compliance with the TCPA and applicable regulations,” it said. Maintaining Starr-Harris’ claims as a class action “is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the TCPA,” said Core. Congress intended that claims under the TCPA proceed as individual actions, it said. The TCPA’s legislative history “supports a conclusion that class actions were not intended,” it said. Congress envisioned the statute “as providing a private right of action to consumers receiving the specifically prohibited communications,” it said. In holding that a class action couldn’t proceed under the TCPA, one federal district court “determined that the statutory remedy is designed to provide adequate incentive for an individual plaintiff to bring suit on his own behalf,” it said.