411 Locals, a leads generation company headquartered in Las Vegas, initiated at least four telemarketing “spam” calls to plaintiff Matthew Pirone’s residential cellphone to promote its goods and services, despite his number having been listed on the national do not call registry since April 2022, alleged his Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Wednesday (docket 7:23-cv-09643) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. The Middletown, New York, resident alleges that 411 Locals initiated the calls using an automated system that randomly or sequentially generated Pirone’s number. Pirone never gave 411 Locals his phone number, nor did he have a relationship with the company or give it permission to send him any type of communication, said his complaint. The calls “are a nuisance and annoyance to Pirone,” and have invaded his privacy, it said. The company previously was sued at least five other times for “telephone spam,” but that hasn’t caused it to “stop spamming,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann for Middle Pennsylvania in Williamsport denied Integrity Vehicle Group’s motion to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act suit brought by plaintiff Zach Fridline, said his signed order Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-01194). Fridline alleged telemarketing agent Vanguard placed several calls to Fridline but didn’t allege Integrity made any calls, Integrity argued in its September motion to dismiss (see 2309190059), but Fridline maintains Vanguard and Integrity entered into a contract requiring Vanguard to promote Integrity products on telemarketing calls to generate new customers, and Integrity then accepted business originating through Vanguard’s telemarketing calls. Fridline “plausibly alleges that Integrity contracted with Vanguard to call potential customers on its behalf,” said Brann's memorandum opinion Tuesday. He received a call from Vanguard soliciting Integrity’s services, and he received mail from Vanguard containing Integrity’s contract, said Brann. “On a motion to dismiss, that is enough.” If in discovery it is revealed that Integrity “had no such power under its contract with Vanguard, then judgment may be entered in favor of Integrity at that time,” he said. Integrity’s answer to the amended complaint is due no later than 14 days from the Tuesday order.

The Boost Health Insurance Agency runs a “campaign” to market its services through telemarketing calls by contacting numbers on the national do not call registry and using a prerecorded message in “plain violation” of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged plaintiff Arthur Cochran’s class action Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-00473) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Tallahassee. The Florida resident also alleges that Boost uses automated systems to make telemarketing calls into Florida, and that by doing so, it also has violated “the provisions” of the Florida Telephone Solicitations Act. The recipients of Boost’s “illegal” calls, which include Cochran and members of his proposed class, are entitled to damages under the TCPA and FTSA, it said. Because the technology Boost uses enables it to make calls en masse, “the appropriate vehicle for their recovery is a class action lawsuit,” it said. Cochran listed his residential cellphone number on the national DNC registry in January 2022, said his complaint. Despite that, he received at least two telemarketing calls from Boost in July, it said. Boost’s conduct has harmed Cochran and all members of his class “because their privacy has been violated," "they were annoyed and harassed,” and “use of their telephone power and network bandwidth and the intrusion" on their phones prevented the devices "from receiving legitimate communications,” the complaint said. The certification of Cochran’s claims for class-wide treatment is “appropriate” because Cochran “can prove the elements of his claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims,” it said. Class members are identifiable through phone records and phone number databases “that will be obtained through discovery,” it said. Based on the automated nature of Boost’s “calling campaign,” there likely are “hundreds of class members,” and individual joinder of those individuals is “impracticable,” it said.

Defendant telehealth company LifeMD's answer to plaintiff Shannan Davis’ Sept. 21 Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action was due Oct. 27, “yet no answer has been filed,” said a text order Tuesday (docket 8:23-cv-02138) from U.S. District Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington for Middle Florida in Tampa. Plaintiff Davis hasn’t yet applied for the entry of a clerk's default against LifeMD, but the court urges her to do so “promptly,” said the order. Davis alleges that LifeMD contributed to the national “barrage” of phone spam by initiating and sending more than 100 illegal text messages to her residential cellphone (see 2309220001).

Unwanted telemarketing calls are “intrusive,” said plaintiff George Moore’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Monday (docket 1:23-cv-15444) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago against Blue Nile, which bills itself as the world’s largest online jeweler. “A great many people object to these calls, which interfere with their lives, tie up their phone lines, and cause confusion and disruption on phone records,” said Moore’s complaint. The Illinois resident’s cellphone number was listed on the national do not call registry for years before he began receiving Blue Nile’s text-message solicitations May 24, it said. The solicitations began after Moore visited a Blue Nile store, but he never gave the jeweler his consent to receive the texts, it said. The text messages persisted, despite the plaintiff’s multiple “stop” requests, and Blue Nile’s acknowledgments of those requests, it said. “Upon information and belief, Blue Nile sends marketing text messages to, minimally, all persons who visit any of its stores, regardless of whether such an individual has requested to no longer receive text messages,” said Moore’s class action. The jeweler “had the ability to immediately honor” Moore’s do not call requests, “as it used an automated system to send the text messages,” it said. Indeed, when the plaintiff contacted the jeweler to demand that the text messages stop, Blue Nile “apologized and acknowledged that his telephone number should have been removed from text message marketing,” it said. The complaint seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the jeweler from sending future calls or text messages soliciting the purchase of its goods or services to any residential number on the national do not call registry. It also seeks statutory damages of $500 for each TCPA violation, plus $1,500 for each knowing or willful violation.

Kohl’s denies that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Actor or any other “statute, law or common law claim,” based on the allegations in plaintiff Brandi Taylor’s Aug. 31 complaint (see 2309010001), said the retailer's answer Monday (docket 2:23-cv-01874) in U.S. District Court for Eastern California in Sacramento. Taylor alleges that Kohl’s inundated her with at least 30 “systematic” debt collection calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice. But Taylor “expressly or impliedly consented to and approved all of the acts and omissions” about which she now complains when she agreed to the terms of her Kohl’s charge card account in March 2022, said Kohl's answer. Taylor’s claims against the company are barred because the TCPA doesn’t permit her “to revoke consent after, as part of a bargained-for-exchange, she agreed to be contacted” when she applied for her Kohl’s charge card, it said. The company alleges that the damages Taylor seeks violate the Constitution’s due process clause and constitute excessive fines in violation of the Eighth Amendment, it said. Granting Taylor’s demand for damages “would result in unjust enrichment,” it said. Taylor hasn’t alleged that she suffered “any particularized and concrete injury, whether tangible or intangible," as a result of any contact Kohl’s made in connection with Taylor’s Kohl’s charge account, it said. Court records show Kohl’s has been sued nearly 70 times for alleged TCPA wrongdoing since May 2011. The retailer has repeatedly asserted affirmative defenses on constitutional grounds in many of those actions (see 2310060009).

Plaintiff Gabriel Nater seeks an injunction requiring State Farm to cease all unsolicited artificial and prerecorded voice phone calls, plus an award of statutory damages, court costs and attorneys’ fees for the insurance company’s repeated Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations, said his TCPA class action Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01408) in U.S. District Court for Central Illinois in Peoria. In State Farm’s “overzealous attempt to market its services,” it knowingly and willfully made, and continues to make, unsolicited telemarketing phone calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice without the prior express written consent of the call recipients, it said. Through this “method,” State Farm has invaded the Tennessee resident’s “personal privacy” and that of members of his putative class, it said. State Farm “has intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA, and will continue to do so” in violation of Nater’s and the class members’ rights, “absent judicial relief and legal redress,” it said. Court records show that Nater’s complaint is the eighth TCPA action filed against State Farm since March 2013.

Regent University “denies any violations, liability, damages or wrongdoing” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said its answer Friday (docket 2:23-cv-00480) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Norfolk to plaintiff Maxx Lyman’s Sept. 27 class action. Lyman alleges that Regent “routinely violates” the TCPA by using an artificial or prerecorded voice to place nonemergency telemarketing calls to cellphone numbers, without recipients’ prior express consent and often to wrong or reassigned numbers (see 2309280003). “To the extent that any violations are established, which is denied, any such violations were not intentional,” said Regent’s answer. Regent has established and implemented “reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent a violation of the TCPA,” it said. To the extent that Lyman wasn’t the intended recipient of the alleged calls, Lyman “has no standing” to assert the TCPA claims, it said. Regent asserts it had consent to call the number, said its answer.

When North Carolina resident James Coleman began receiving prerecorded phone calls from Walgreens without his consent, he immediately requested that they stop and that he be added to Walgreens’ internal do not call list, but the calls nevertheless continued, alleged his Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Friday (docket 1:23-cv-15376) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. Coleman’s cellphone isn’t associated with a business and is used for personal purposes, and his number has been listed on the national do no call registry since February 2005, said his complaint. He estimates receiving at least eight “automated” Walgreens calls between April 19 and July 6, it said. The calls persisted even after Coleman spoke with different Walgreens agents on three occasions asking that the calls stop, it said. Walgreens records phone conversations that take place over Walgreens’ “inbound customer support lines,” it said. The audio recordings will show that Coleman requested numerous times that he be placed on Walgreens’ DNC list, and that Walgreens’ representatives responded that Walgreens would honor the request, it said. Either Walgreens added Coleman to its internal DNC list but continued to call him anyway, or it failed to “properly implement” its internal DNC list “as required by the TCPA’s regulations,” it said. Coleman is entitled to $1,500 per call if Walgreens’ wrongful actions are found to be knowing or willful, it said. He has suffered concrete harm because of Walgreens’ unwanted and unsolicited calls, and his “forms of actual injury are sufficient for Article III standing purposes,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Steven Logan for Arizona in Phoenix granted Telephone Consumer Protection Act defendant Vivek 2024's Oct. 10 motion to transfer its case to him for consolidation with another case, Howard v. Republican National Committee (docket 2:23-cv-00993), the judge already was presiding over (see 2310110029), said the judge's signed order Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-01958). Vivik 2024 is Republican Vivek Ramaswamy's presidential campaign committee. Phillip Woods, the plaintiff in Woods v. Vivek 2024, didn’t oppose the motion. The Woods case “calls for substantially the same question of law” as Howard, said Logan’s order. That question is whether a prerecorded video, sent via text message, is actionable as a “prerecorded voice” under the TCPA’s Section 227(b), it said. “Both cases involve plaintiffs who received unwanted text messages” that included videos with prerecorded audio clips, it said. Whether those messages are actionable under the TCPA “is a matter of law that will be dispositive in determining whether the respective plaintiffs have successfully stated a claim” under Section 227(b), it said. The plaintiff in Woods also has retained the same counsel as the plaintiff’s counsel in Howard, “and many of the same arguments have been made during briefing,” said Logan’s order. Transferring the case “will also eliminate substantial duplication of labor” between Logan’s court and the transferring court, it said. “Transfer is appropriate here,” it said.