Lightfoot Media and Power House Marketing acted in good faith and "had reasonable grounds for believing" their actions were in compliance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, including by implementing procedures to prevent violations and by maintaining an internal do not call list, said their answer Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-15983) ) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago to Kyle Roseboro’s March 15 first amended complaint. Roseboro alleges that Lightfoot and Power House, both lead generation businesses, “routinely violate” the TCPA by delivering ad or marketing text messages to residential or cellphone numbers listed with the national do not call registry without the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients. But Roseboro’s claims are barred because he provided prior express written permission to receive the communications at issue in the complaint, said the defendants’ answer. Roseboro and the purported class members also didn’t follow “proper procedures or channels to revoke their consent,” so their revocation of consent wasn’t “properly executed,” it said.

Sunrise Health violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending telemarketing text messages promoting its weight loss services to Margo Simmons and other putative class members after they requested to no longer receive such communications, alleged Simmon’s class action Wednesday (docket 4:24-cv-02023) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland. Simmons replied “stop” to the Sunrise text messages she began receiving March 9, but the messages kept coming, said her complaint. To engage in telemarketing, a company’s do not call list procedures must satisfy six specific minimum requirements under the TCPA, it said. Those include, maintaining an internal DNC list; training personnel about the existence and use of the internal DNC list; and recording DNC requests and complying with them, it said. If a company fails to satisfy any one of those requirements, it’s not entitled to engage in telemarketing, and violates the law by doing so, “regardless of whether it satisfies all of the regulation’s other requirements,” said the complaint. Simmons and the class have been harmed by Sunrise’s acts “because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed,” it said.

LoanDepot's March 6 motion to dismiss Jenice Clouse’s first amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint “hinges on a narrow interpretation” of the TCPA's do not call provisions, and should be denied, said Clouse’s response in opposition Tuesday (docket 8:23-cv-02720) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Clouse's complaint alleges she began receiving calls on her cellphone from loanDepot in June, attempting to reach an unknown person named Elizabeth to solicit her to apply for a home mortgage loan. Clouse asserts the calls were unlawful, partly because her number has been listed on the national do not call registry for some time. LoanDepot’s motion to dismiss contends only that individuals “who have personally registered their numbers on the DNC registry can claim protection under the TCPA,” said her opposition. But that argument “blatantly disregards” the broader purpose of the TCPA “to protect consumers from unwelcome telephonic intrusions,” it said. It also ignores the “factual assertion” that Clouse's number was indeed listed on the DNC registry before the receipt of loanDepot's unsolicited calls, it said. Courts have previously dismissed the argument loanDepot is making, it said. They have held that a plaintiff doesn’t need to prove they personally listed their number on the DNC registry. All that needs to be proved is that the phone number was registered at the time of the calls, it said. LoanDepot’s “narrowly focused” argument overlooks “the essential fact” that Clouse's phone number was indeed listed on the DNC registry before the disputed calls were made, said the opposition. At this stage, the law requires the court to assume all Clouse's statements are true and draw all reasonable conclusions in her favor, it said. It’s only “logical and reasonable to assume” that Clouse, not someone else, registered her phone number, it said.

Keller Williams Realty uses telemarketing to promote its services and solicit new clients, and in so doing, it violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling consumers without consent, including calls to phone numbers listed on the national do not call registry, alleged Mark Ortega’s class action Tuesday (docket 5:24-cv-00332) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in San Antonio. Ortega seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by the realty company’s conduct, said the complaint. Though the San Antonio resident’s cellphone number has been listed on the DNC registry for more than a year, he still received at least two telemarketing calls and text messages from Keller Williams on March 4, advertising the listing of a home, it said. Ortega’s attorney emailed Keller Williams the next day, asserting that the plaintiff didn’t consent to receiving communications from the company, and demanding damages, it said. An attorney for Keller Williams answered the email March 20, denying the demand, it said.

Robert Hossfeld and Wes Newman have each had his cellphone number listed on the national do not call registry for more than four years, but despite repeated DNC requests, Allstate and agents on its behalf keep calling their cellphones to advertise and sell Allstate goods and services, alleged their Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Monday (docket 1:24-cv-02613) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The incessant calls show that Allstate’s internal DNC practices don’t “properly track the requirements” of the TCPA, or that Allstate hasn’t “properly implemented the policies” it has in place, said the complaint. The TCPA requires that sellers and those that make calls on their behalf coordinate internal DNC lists to effectively stop unwanted solicitation calls, it said. But Allstate doesn’t coordinate DNC requests among itself, its agents and their vendors, “let alone ensure that those telemarketing on its behalf scrub their call lists against a comprehensive internal DNC list,” it said. Texas resident Hossfeld has sued Allstate for TCPA violations three times before, but none of his prior actions caused Allstate to change its policies or practices, and he has continued to receive Allstate telemarketing calls, said the complaint. Because Allstate’s TCPA violations are happening on a “massive scale,” Hossfeld and Newman of Illinois brought their lawsuit to secure money damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and others who similarly endured Allstate’s violations, it said. Court records show their class action is the 29th TCPA complaint filed against Allstate since October 2015.

Cherry Technologies, a payment plan company for managing dental patients’ out-of-pocket costs, “specifically denies” any Telephone Consumer Protection Act wrongdoing, said its answer Monday (docket 9:24-cv-80005) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in West Palm Beach to Kawa Orthodontics’ Jan. 3 class action (see 2401040001). Kawa alleges Cherry sent it and at least 40 other recipients unsolicited fax ads in mid-December trumpeting how patients could take advantage of unused dental benefits expiring at the end of the year. The faxes used “a generic advertising template suitable for mass transmission to numerous recipients,” said the complaint. But Kawa and the putative class members are barred from asserting claims in whole or in part to the extent that the faxes at issue were sent to an online fax service, virtual fax or efax and not to a physical fax machine, said Cherry’s answer. Any claim for treble damages under the TCPA is barred because Cherry didn’t engage in knowing or willful misconduct, it said. Kawa and the putative class members lack standing to bring the claims alleged in the complaint because they didn’t suffer “a concrete harm that is fairly traceable to a violation” allegedly committed by Cherry, it said. The TCPA and the regulations and rules promulgated under it violate the First Amendment, “including by imposing content-based restrictions on speech that fail to withstand strict scrutiny,” it said. To the extent Kawa contends that the TCPA restricts informational communications, its interpretation of the TCPA also violates the First Amendment, it said.

Plaintiff Matilde Cowen and defendant Kohl’s, complying with a magistrate judge’s Jan. 28 order (see 2401300011), filed their joint motion for dismissal of the entire Telephone Consumer Protection Act action with prejudice (docket 3:23-cv-00199) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego by the judge’s Monday deadline. The parties reached a settlement in the case in January. Cowen had alleged she had to fend off calls from Kohl’s debt collection agents as often as twice a day, sometimes every day, in violation of the TCPA and also California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (see 2302030043). Cowen estimates Kohl’s called her more than 150 times in total, after receiving written notice from her lawyers revoking any prior consent to call.

Cindy Luchinske reached a settlement with the Apptness Media Group over her Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims, said her notice Friday (docket 2:23-cv-00267) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Spokane. The parties hope to file a stipulation of dismissal within 45 days, it said. Americans receive billions of spam text messages every year, and Luchinske’s Sept. 13 class action alleged that Apptness, a compendium of digital marketers, “is a major participant in this spam” (see 2309140004).

Lifespan Euro Med Spa, a medical spa and salon in Sugar Land, Texas, engages in unsolicited text messaging promoting its products and services, and sends text messages to U.S. consumers after they have opted out of those solicitations, alleged Florida resident Heather Villanueva's Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Friday (docket 5:24-cv-00150) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Ocala. In addition, Lifespan engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures or proper training of its telemarketing personnel, said the complaint. Lifespan texted and subsequently called Villanueva's cellphone for the first time Jan. 21, and she “explicitly" asked that the company stop contacting her, the class action said. She submitted a second opt-out request in February, but the company “ignored” both, it said. In sum, Lifespan sent the plaintiff more than 10 marketing text messages after her initial opt-out request Jan. 21, said the complaint. More than five of those marketing text messages were sent after Villanueva's second opt-out request, said the complaint. The defendant’s refusal to honor Villanueva's opt-out requests demonstrates that Lifespan hasn’t instituted procedures “for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive text messages,” it said. “The precise details regarding its lack of requisite policies and procedures” are solely within Lifespan’s “knowledge and control,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman for Northern Illinois in Chicago granted Humana’s motion to dismiss without prejudice plaintiff Antionette Woodward’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act putative class action for lack of personal jurisdiction (see 2304280006), said Coleman’s signed order Friday (docket 1:23-cv-00979). The judge gave Woodward 30 days to cure the deficiencies in her complaint, or the dismissal will be with prejudice, said the order. Woodward alleges that Humana is vicariously liable for the incessant insurance solicitation calls its third-party telemarketing vendor, Healthhubb, made on Humana’s behalf to a cellphone number she had listed on the national do not call registry since September 2022 (see 2302170038). But the judge found that Woodward has failed to make “a prima facie showing” that the court has personal jurisdiction over Humana, said the order. “The record is not ambiguous or unclear on the issue,” it said. Humana has submitted a declaration “unequivocally denying” any involvement with Healthubb’s actions, it said. Woodward had the opportunity to respond and submit affidavits of her own to provide the court with some evidence that Humana “is vicariously liable for the calls made to her by Healthubb,” it said. Yet Woodward has provided the court “with nothing more than her unsupported suspicion of Humana’s purported relationship with Healthubb,” based on an alleged call where Woodward was transferred to a Humana insurance agent, it said. Because Woodward “has provided nothing but her unsupported assertion of personal jurisdiction over Humana, her request for jurisdictional discovery is denied,” it said.