Telephone And Texting Compliance News — May 2024

M
Mintz

Contributor

Mintz is a general practice, full-service Am Law 100 law firm with more than 600 attorneys. We are headquartered in Boston and have additional US offices in Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, and Washington, DC, as well as an office in Toronto, Canada.
We are pleased to present our latest edition of Telephone and Texting Compliance News, providing insights and news related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
United States Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

We are pleased to present our latest edition of Telephone and Texting Compliance News, providing insights and news related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In this month's newsletter, we continue our coverage of the FCC Enforcement Bureau's “Spring Cleaning” initiative to combat robocalling, including its cease-and-desist letter ordering Alliant Financial to mitigate unlawful traffic on its networks and a related Public Notice. We also discuss the bureau's first-of-its-kind Enforcement Advisory classifying a group of repeat robocallers and their personnel, known collectively as Royal Tiger, as a Consumer Communications Information Services Threat. Finally, we cover the FCC's adoption of two Notices of Apparent Liability focusing on an illegal robocalling scheme during the New Hampshire presidential primary.

This month's Litigation Update explores recent court decisions that provide defendant-friendly clarity on technology and platforms that meet the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS). These include the Third Circuit's confirmation in Perrong v. Montgomery County Democratic Committee that list-mode calls, which involve a device dialing telephone numbers from a customer list, do not trigger ATDS provisions. In Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd., the Second Circuit held that the TCPA's ban on the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice does not apply to text messages. Litigants also received critical appellate guidance on structuring class settlements and related fee requests from the Eleventh Circuit in Drazen v. Pinto, which involved a settlement of claims premised on the use of an ATDS.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More