Lawyers for neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants in the class action alleging that the right-leaning social media platform Parler violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (see 2210240040) have a sense about how big the potential class will be, they told U.S. District Judge Roy Altman for Southern Florida in Miami in a Zoom status conference Monday. “We have just gotten our hands on this” case, and “have very recently become involved,” Parler attorney Jim Humphrey of Graves Garrett told the judge. “We have not engaged in an assessment of the size of this class yet,” said Humphrey. “We haven’t been able to do that with our client, although that is the first thing on our to-do list. I know we are working on that now.” If nobody knows how big the class is, “nobody knows how much to pay,” Altman told plaintiffs’ attorney Manuel Hiraldo. Altman told lawyers for both sides: “I have to tell you, by the way, I could have been so rich if I was a TCPA plaintiff. I get like a thousand of these a day.” Parler has a Nov. 17 extended deadline to respond to the complaint (docket 0:22-cv-61805).

Jefferson County, Alabama, consumer Katherine Dorr voluntarily dismisses without prejudice her Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said her notice Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-01271) in U.S. District Court for Northern Alabama. Both sides will bear their own legal costs. The dismissal came about six weeks after her class action alleged the committee inundated her with “spam texts” seeking political donations.

LoanDepot seeks a deadline extension for a month to Dec. 19 to answer a complaint that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (see 2210250045), said its motion Thursday (docket 3:22-cv-00374) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in El Paso. Plaintiff Mabel Arredondo served loanDepot with the summons and complaint Oct. 27, making the company’s response due Nov. 17, it said. Good cause exists for granting the extension due to “other pending matters which have been and are occupying counsel’s time, resources, and attention over the next week,” it said. Plaintiff Arredondo does not oppose the extension, it said.

Cedar Park, Texas, resident Brady Bennett has had his cellphone number listed on the do-not-call registry since November 2008, yet Charter Communications inundated him with “a multitude” of telemarketing robocalls, soliciting the sale of Spectrum cable, phone and internet services, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged his complaint Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-01124) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. Bennett wrote Charter’s legal department in October 2020 demanding that the calls cease and saying they were in violation of the TCPA, it said. Charter responded by denying it placed the calls, assuring Bennett that his number was added to its internal do-not-call list, but the calls nevertheless continued, it said. Charter “ostensibly” instructs its call-center vendors “not to unlawfully telemarket to consumers, while at the very same time providing financial incentives for those same resellers to telemarket Spectrum services,” it said. A Charter spokesperson declined comment.

The recent decision in U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee in Nashville showed that a contract prohibiting Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations protected a seller when its telemarketing vendor allegedly ran afoul of the statute, said Manatt Phelps law firm in an analysis Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger’s decision in the case, Black v. SunPath (docket 3:21-cv-00023), “serves as a reminder that contractual provisions with vendors prohibiting TCPA violations can provide important safeguards against a finding of vicarious liability,” it said. SunPath, a seller of vehicle extended service contracts, struck a call center marketing agreement (CCMA) with its vendor, Vehicle Activation Department (VAD), that required the vendor to operate in accordance with all FCC rules and regulations and to obey all state and federal statutes, said Manatt. SunPath moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not responsible for calls made by VAD, it said. Trauger agreed, granting the motion. “The CCMA unambiguously states that SunPath did not wish for VAD to violate the TCPA,” said her memorandum and order. “Permitting recovery against upstream sellers presents a possible way to stanch the demand for unlawful telemarketing, as an alternative to chasing one fly-by-night robocalling operation after another in an attempt to reduce the supply,” it said. “A policy argument for vicarious liability, however, is no substitute for establishing that such liability applies in this particular case.”

Ahren Tiller, with the BLC Law Center in San Diego, filed two virtually identical, consecutively numbered complaints Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Southern California on behalf of separate clients, both alleging Wells Fargo Bank violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by inundating credit card customers with debt collection calls using an automatic telephone dialing system and prerecorded or robotic voice. In the first action (docket 3:22-cv-01697), plaintiff Mario Vega alleges Wells Fargo continued to “willfully call” him more than 75 times after Tiller sent the bank a May 5 cease and desist letter revoking Vega’s prior consent to be contacted. In the second lawsuit (docket 3:22-cv-01698), plaintiff Christopher Atanasoff alleges the bank called him more than 60 times after Tiller sent the cease and desist letter July 29. Both complaints seek treble damages for “knowing and/or willful” TCPA violations. Wells Fargo didn’t comment Wednesday.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision Oct. 20 remanding to the district court a $925.22 million Telephone Consumer Protection Act judgment against ViSalus to determine if the large sum violated the company’s due process rights (see Ref:2210210069]) showed that “the reasonableness and proportionality of a punitive award are important,” said Venable in an analysis of the decision Wednesday. The court was “clear” that just because an aggregate TCPA award becomes “predominantly punitive does not render it constitutionally unsound,” it said. That the 9th Circuit held that an aggregated TCPA damages award could be unconstitutional “is surprising, to the say the least,” but it seems that such a high damages award “can cause even the typically plaintiff-friendly Ninth Circuit to pause,” it said. “It remains to be seen how much, if at all, the ViSalus award will be reduced, so avoiding such an award continues to be a party’s first priority,” said Venable: “An ounce of TCPA compliance counseling now might just save 925 million pounds of pain later.”

Attorneys for Procter & Gamble and for plaintiff Christa Simmons are to confer and file a joint scheduling report by Nov. 18 in Simmons’ Oct. 23 Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action (see 2210210057), said an order (docket 0:22-cv-61956) signed Thursday by U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. Simmons’ complaint, also citing violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, alleges P&G engaged in unsolicited text messaging to promote its Oral-B brand without her prior express written consent.

U.S. District Judge Roy Altman for Southern Florida in Miami scheduled a Nov. 7 video status conference in the class action in which Broward County consumer Catherine Migliano alleges Parler inundated her with telemarketing text messages promoting the sale of Donald Trump non-fungible tokens in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said the judge’s order Wednesday (docket 0:22-cv-61805). Altman is giving attorneys the option of appearing in person or via Zoon, said the order. Migliano’s complaint was the first of two TCPA actions filed against the right-leaning social media platform in just over a month (see 2210240040). In the other TCPA complaint against Parler, U.S. District Judge Kent Wetherell for Northern Florida in Pensacola signed an order Thursday granting the platform's unopposed motion for a deadline extension to Nov. 18 to answer the suit by plaintiff Jordan Copeland.

Parler, the right-leaning social media platform, is seeking a three-week deadline extension to Nov. 18 to answer allegations it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (see 2210240040), said an unopposed motion Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-21243) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Pensacola. Plaintiff Jordan Copeland served his state court complaint on Parler on Sept. 23, and Parler removed the action to federal court in Pensacola on Oct. 21, said the motion. Parler only recently hired lawyers for the case and they need additional time to investigate the allegations and prepare a response, it said.