To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Another district court, this time the Southern District of California, has waded into the growing debate over whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) autodialer ban was unenforceable in its entirety for a five-year period from 2015–2020. In
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020), the Supreme Court held that the government-backed debt exception to the TCPA rendered the statute’s cellphone autodialer ban an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. (You can read more about the Supreme Court’s highly fractured decision in
Predominant Issues.)
After
Friday, February 5, 2021
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. (“
AAPC”), 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020), the Supreme Court decision that held the TCPA’s government-debt exception instituted via a 2015 amendment to the statute violated the First Amendment. Courts recently have dealt with the issue of whether plaintiffs can bring TCPA claims for conduct occurring between 2015 and July 2020, the date the unconstitutional amendment was passed and the date the Supreme Court declared the amendment unconstitutional and ordered it severed from the TCPA. The Eastern District of Louisiana said the answer to this question is no.
Creasy v. Charter Communications, Inc., 2020 WL 5761117 (E.D. La. Sept. 28, 2020). The district courts for the Southern District of California and the Northern District of Ohio disagree, as we discuss below. Our prior posts on this issue, which we have been following closely, can be found here.
A California federal judge has shot down Royal Sea Cruises Inc.'s argument that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act was essentially void from 2015, when an exemption on its robocall ban was put into place, to last year, when the U.S. Supreme Court found that exemption unconstitutional.