Few decisions in the world of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) have been more awaited than Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. — (2021). There, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) wrestled with the ultimate TCPA question: “whether [an automatic telephone dialing system] encompasses equipment that can ‘store’ and dial telephone

The Southern District of Florida recently ruled that ringless voicemails (RVM) are “calls” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In Schaevitz v. Braman Hyundai, No. 1:17-cv-23890 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2019) the defendant sent a pre-recorded RVM to the plaintiff soliciting a return call regarding trading in the plaintiff’s car for a newer

Few things under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) are subject to as much uncertainty as the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS). This year’s decision in ACA Int’l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) seems to have raised more questions than it answered as courts and the FCC continue to

Two weeks ago, we attended the ACA International Annual Convention in Nashville.  One of the more interesting discussions focused on compliance lessons creditors and debt collectors can take away from recent court decisions.

Some of them were easy. For example, in Armata v. Target Corp., 2018 WL 3097094 (Mass. Sup. Ct. June 25, 2018),