Court Rules “Untraceability” Results in TCPA Dismissal

The Eighth Circuit recently dismissed a TCPA claim for lack of Article III standing after concluding that the alleged injuries were not caused by (“traceable”) the purported TCPA violations. St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc. (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2018).

In Nomax, the plaintiff filed a class action after receiving a number of promotional fax advertisements. Some of the faxes had a box that the recipient could check “[i]f you wish to no longer receive faxes from Nomax Inc.” The others had a checkbox with adjacent language, reading “Please do NOT fax to this office.” All possessed a return fax number and specific contact information.

Plaintiff did not attempt to opt-out.   Rather, plaintiff alleged that it was damaged to the tune of lost paper and toner and inconvenience.

The Eighth Circuit held that the alleged injury was not reasonably traceable to the alleged TCPA violation, to wit, the opt-out notice. Specifically, the court noted that plaintiff consented to receive the faxes and would have incurred the alleged damage regardless of the sufficiency of the opt-out notice. The court also rejected the argument that the alleged failure to provide an opt-out notice that met all regulatory requirements was an actionable, concrete injury.

“Whatever technical deficiencies might have appeared in the opt-out notices, all twelve faxes contained a box that the recipient could check if he did not wish to receive future faxes, and a domestic fax number to which the form could be returned.”

Takeaway: Defendants should consult with an experienced telemarketing lawyer to evaluate available TCPA defenses early on in the litigation process, including, but not limited to, whether the plaintiff is able to trace alleged injuries to concrete harm.

Richard B. Newman is a telemarketing compliance lawyer at Hinch Newman LLP.  Follow him on LinkedIn at FTC Lawyer.

Advertising Material. Informational purposes only. Not legal advice. Always seek the advice of an attorney. Previous case results do not guarantee similar future result. Hinch Newman LLP | 40 Wall St., 35th Floor, New York, NY 10005 | (212) 756-8777.

Posted in

Richard B. Newman

Richard B. Newman is a nationally recognized FTC advertising compliance, CID investigation and regulatory enforcemetn attorney. He regularly provides advertising counsel and represents clients in high-profile investigations and enforcement proceedings initiated by the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general, departments of consumer affairs, and other federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over advertising and marketing practices. Richard is also an ecommerce lawyer and spam defense attorney. His practice additionally focuses upon false advertising defense, data privacy, cybersquatting, intellectual property law and transactional matters relating to the dissemination of national advertising campaigns, including the gamut of affiliate marketing, telemarketing, lead generation, list management and licensing agreements. Richard advises clients on how to minimize the legal risks associated with digital marketing, email marketing, telemarketing, social media influencer campaigns, endorsements and testimonials, negative option marketing models, native advertising, online promotions and comparative advertising,

To Learn More About This Topic or if You Have Questions, Contact an Experienced FTC Compliance and Defense Lawyer