The district court concluded that Hall lacked Article III standing because she failed to allege that she was the “actual user” of the phone or the “actual recipient” of the text messages. Plaintiff Kristen Hall alleged that defendants sent text messages to a cell phone number that she had placed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and provided to her thirteenyear-old son. SUMMARY ** Telephone Consumer Protection Act / Standing The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal, for lack of Article III standing, of an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and remanded for further proceedings. Bennett, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted San Francisco, California Filed JBefore: Michelle T. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. 2:21-cv-01997JAM-AC OPINION Defendants-Appellees. 22-16216 Plaintiff-Appellant, SMOSH DOT COM, INC., DBA Smosh MYTHICAL ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, D.C. The panel held that the owner and subscriber of the phone suffers a concrete, de facto injury when their right to be free from such communications is violated, even if the communications are intended for or solicited by another individual, and even if someone else is using the phone at the time the messages are transmitted.įOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTEN HALL, v. Reversing, the panel held that the owner and subscriber of a phone with a number listed on the Do-Not-Call Registry has suffered an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing when unsolicited telemarketing calls or texts are sent to the number in alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Kristen Hall alleged that defendants sent text messages to a cell phone number that she had placed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and provided to her thirteen- year-old son. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.Ĭourt Description: Telephone Consumer Protection Act / Standing The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal, for lack of Article III standing, of an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and remanded for further proceedings. You already receive new opinion summaries from Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals? The panel held that the owner and subscriber of the phone suffers a concrete, de facto injury when their right to be free from such communications is violated, even if the communications are intended for or solicited by another individual and even if someone else is using the phone at the time the messages are transmitted. The panel held that the owner and subscriber of a phone with a number listed on the Do-Not-Call Registry has suffered an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing when unsolicited telemarketing calls or texts are sent to the number in alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The district court concluded that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing because she failed to allege that she was the “actual user” of the phone or the “actual recipient” of the text messages. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act alleging that Defendants sent text messages to a cell phone number that she had placed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and provided to her thirteen-year-old son.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |