ADT Solar Had ‘Prior Express’ Consent to Place Telemarketing Calls, Says Its Answer
ADT Solar “specifically denies” plaintiff Casey Bertram’s class-action allegations that it has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, that Bertram “is entitled to bring this action on behalf of any class," or that he meets any of the requirements of…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, said ADT’s answer Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-02206) in U.S. District Court for Central Illinois in Urbana. Bertram’s Sept. 22 complaint alleges ADT made at least four telemarketing calls to his residential number, despite that number having been listed on the national do not call registry since November 2005 (see 2309240001). But the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted because ADT had “the prior express written consent” with Bertram and each of his putative class members to make the calls, said ADT’s answer. To the extent that Bertram seeks treble damages for knowing and willful violations of the TCPA, “it violates ADT’s rights to protection against excessive fines, and equal protection and procedural and substantive due process” under the Fifth and 14th amendments, it said. “ADT expressly reserves the right to raise additional affirmative or other defenses that may be established by discovery and the evidence in this case,” said its answer. It asks the court to enter a judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety with prejudice and awarding ADT its court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.