Solar panel company Greenstar Power denies the allegations in Kelly Pinn’s class action that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Business and Commerce Code (TBCC), said Greenstar’s answer Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-00066) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. Pinn alleges that Greenstar hired an unidentified vendor to make telemarketing calls to numbers on the national do not call registry, and that her own number has been on the DNC registry for more than a year (see 2401230002). But the complaint “fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action” against Greenstar, said its answer. The TCPA and its regulations, rules and interpretations, plus the TBCC, violate the First Amendment because they impose “content-based restrictions on speech that fail to withstand strict scrutiny,” it said. The application of the TCPA and TBCC, on which the complaint is based, including the imposition of statutory damages on Greenstar, also violate the Constitution's due process provisions, it said. Certain definitions contained in the TCPA also “render the statute unconstitutionally vague,” it said. Additionally, the statutory penalties that Pinn seeks are excessive, it said. She and her putative class members are barred from asserting their claims “because the calls at issue were sent with the recipients’ prior express permission or consent and that consent was either irrevocable or was not effectively revoked,” it said. Any and all claims brought in the complaint are barred because Greenstar “possessed a good-faith belief that it was not committing any wrongdoing and any violations resulted from a bona fide error,” despite reasonable practices to prevent violations of the TBCC, the TCPA and related regulations, it said.

A debt relief services provider denies Yazmin Gonzalez’s allegations that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Business and Commerce Code by calling her incessantly to promote its services, said its answer Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00436) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in El Paso. Gonzalez estimates she received at least 27 calls from Countrywide Legal Group between Sept. 13 and Nov. 11, to a number she listed on the national do not call registry in February 2023 (see 2312020001). But Countrywide contends Gonzalez’s claims are barred because to the extent the subject calls occurred, such calls “were invited, permitted, consented to, and/or made pursuant to a personal or an established business relationship,” said its answer. It alleges the plaintiff “seeks out, invites, and welcomes” solicitation calls “in an effort to manufacture and pursue litigation.” She does so “not to seek compensation for damages allegedly suffered, as contemplated by statute, but rather to seek to enrich herself by seeking disproportionate payments” from TCPA defendants, said its answer.

Motive Technologies engages in a campaign to market its trucking logistics services through the use of prerecorded telemarketing calls, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged Joseph Bond’s class action Wednesday (docket 3:24-cv-01215) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Bond never consented to receive calls from Motive, but the company nevertheless called his cellphone twice in early January, said the complaint. Bond contacted Motive about the prerecorded calling, and the company didn’t deny making the calls, it said. The telemarketing calls invaded the plaintiff’s privacy and solitude, wasted his time and tied up his phone line, the complaint said.

A Westland, Michigan, business violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited fax advertisements to promote its goods and services to would-be customers without their consent, alleged plaintiff William Gress’ class action Tuesday (docket 1:24-cv-01641) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The Embroidery Shoppe either negligently or willfully violated the rights of Gress and other recipients in sending the faxes, said the complaint. The TCPA “expressly prohibits” unsolicited fax advertising because it damages the recipients, who are deprived of paper and toner and the authorized use of their fax machines, it said. There’s “no reasonable means” for Gress or other recipients to avoid receiving illegal fax advertisements, it said. Fax machines “must be left on and ready to receive the urgent communications authorized by their owners,” it said.

James Shelton alleges that Fluce AI and its owner, Ralph Cohen, made unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls to him and others without their prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said his class action Monday (docket 1:24-cv-01429) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Brooklyn. Because the calls were transmitted using technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day, Shelton sues on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received similar calls, said his complaint. Fluce offers a service that’s used to make tens of thousands of automated sales calls using AI software provided by third parties Amazon and Twilio, it said. To generate leads and find potential customers interested in using its services, Fluce makes telemarketing calls using AI chatbots to consumers who have never had a relationship with the company and who have never consented to receive the calls, it said. Fluce placed at least four such calls to Shelton’s cellphone on Feb. 8, said the complaint. Shelton and members of the class have been harmed by Fluce’s acts “because their privacy has been violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and, in some instances, they were charged for incoming calls,” it said. The calls also occupied their phone lines, rendering them unavailable for legitimate communication, it said.

Crown Roofing & Solar denies the allegations in plaintiff Alissa Hoheisel’s Dec. 22 class action that it places unsolicited telemarketing phone calls to consumers without their consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (see 2312230001), said the roofing company’s answer Monday (docket 2:23-cv-02563) in U.S. District Court for Kansas in Kansas City. Hoheisel alleges receiving multiple unwanted calls from Crown Roofing & Solar in November, though her number has been listed on the national do not call registry since June 2010. But Hoheisel fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, said the company in the only affirmative defense it asserts in its answer.

Vintage Stock opposes the plaintiffs' Feb. 12 motion to remand the dismissed count II of their first amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint to the Missouri state court where it originated before the home entertainment retailer removed it in January 2023 (see 2402130004), said the retailer's memorandum in opposition Monday (docket 4:23-cv-00042) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Missouri in St. Louis. In dismissing count II without prejudice, the judge found that Sheila and Dennis Thompson lacked standing to bring the allegation that Vintage Stock failed to institute procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to be called. The Thompsons contend the judge improperly dismissed count II without prejudice, and that based on 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, the judge should remand count II to state court. But Vintage Stock asks that the motion, which it interprets as “effectively a motion for reconsideration” of the judge’s order, be denied, said its memorandum. The claim “was properly dismissed for lack of standing,” the defendant said. Remand of a single claim where two others remain in federal court also “is futile and would needlessly increase the burden on the parties and courts,” it said. As a preliminary matter, the claim was dismissed without prejudice and the Thompsons may refile count II in state court if they choose, it said. But doing so would render the Thompsons’ remand motion “all the more unnecessary,” it said. Even if the Thompsons refiled count II in state court, “it would still be dismissed for lack of standing,” it said.

Milwaukee resident George Madison ran up a $3,000 debt for unpaid apartment rent, sparking the Hunter Warfield agency to begin making debt collection calls to Madison’s cellphone number, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged Madison’s complaint Friday (docket 8:24-cv-00486) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Madison told the agency he was financially unable to pay the debt and asked the company to cease all calls to his cellphone, said the complaint. But the agency has “disregarded those demands” and has continued placing the calls, it said. Madison has been “unfairly and unnecessarily harassed” by the agency’s actions, it said. He has suffered “concrete harm,” including invasion of privacy, aggravation that accompanies unwanted collection calls and emotional distress, said his complaint. In addition to the agency’s TCPA wrongdoing, Madison alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Wisconsin Consumer Act.

Great Western Insurance Co. denies the allegations in Micheal Welch’s Feb. 1 class action that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (see 2402020002), said the insurer’s answer Friday (docket 6:24-cv-00234) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando. Welch alleges that Great Western engages in unsolicited marketing, “harming thousands of consumers in the process.” He further alleges that all of Great Western’s violations “were knowing, willful, and intentional,” and that it didn’t maintain procedures “reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation.” But Great Western’s answer asserts 31 affirmative defenses, including that the TCPA’s safe harbor provision bars Welch’s claims. Great Western also contends that the plaintiff “expressly or impliedly consented to and approved all the acts and omissions about which he now complains,” said its answer. Great Western also denies engaging in willful or knowing TCPA misconduct, and it contends that any of Welch’s alleged injuries “are the result of the conduct of an entity or entities that acted outside the scope of their agency” or breached “relevant contractual provisions” for which Great Western can’t be held responsible, it said. The insurer further contends that Welch’s claims on behalf of the putative class are barred because his case isn’t maintainable as a class action under Rule 23, said its answer.

Robert Doyle voluntarily dismissed without prejudice his Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action claims against Resorts Condominium International (RCI), said his notice Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-23237) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark. In its “overzealous attempt” to market its timeshare services, RCI knowingly and willfully made, and continues to make, unsolicited telemarketing phone calls, alleged Doyle’s Dec. 19 complaint (see 2312200004).