July 2015 – TCPA Watch

EU Data Protection Supervisor Releases Report on Pending Data Protection Reforms

Jul 31 2015

The European Union Data Protection Supervisor, Giovanni Buttarelli, recently released his non-binding recommendations on the draft EU General Data Protection Regulation, which is the subject of a so-called “trilogue” consultative process among officials of the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of Ministers to agree on final language of the regulations. It is largely expected that once finalized, the GDPR will be adopted before year end 2015, which will require approval by both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. As reflected in an annex to Mr. Buttarelli’s recommendations, the European Parliament and Council of Ministers have differed in their approach to various aspects of the regulations, particularly as to enforcement and sanctions, necessitating the trilogue discussions.

New TCPA Order Holds Few Bright Spots For Businesses

Jul 14 2015

As originally published in Law360

By Martin L. Stern, Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, Joseph C. Wylie and Samuel Castic

On Friday, July 10, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission issued its much-anticipated Declaratory Ruling and Order clarifying numerous aspects of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The commission had adopted the order at a particularly contentious June 18, 2015 open meeting (see earlier post), which one commissioner called “a farce” and another described as “a new low … never seen in politics or policymaking.”

In an unusual move, the commission made the order effective on its July 10 release date, rather than following publication in the Federal Register as is typical, providing companies with no opportunity to digest the order and adjust business practices accordingly.

As expected, the order largely brushes aside legitimate business concerns and a sensible approach to TCPA regulation in favor of findings that potentially increase risk for businesses in a variety of circumstances, including the possibility of increased class action litigation. In addition, beyond clarifying that carriers may offer call-blocking technologies to consumers, the order offers little to actually protect consumers from scam telemarketing schemes, including offshore “tele-spammers” that use robocalling or phone-number spoofing technologies.
Read More

Court Awards Individual Plaintiff $229,500 in Damages Under TCPA

Jul 12 2015

By Marty Stern, Joseph C. Wylie II, Molly K. McGinley and Nicole C. Mueller

A recent decision by a New York federal court serves as a stark reminder of the need for companies to adopt and follow robust “do not call” procedures in order to minimize the risk of rapidly escalating statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case appears to be the first to rely on the Federal Communications Commission’s recently-announced but at the time, unreleased TCPA declaratory rulings (previously discussed here). (The order has just been released, but as of this writing, the link was down.)

Update: Sixth Circuit Limits Scope of “Unsolicited Advertisement” under the TCPA

Jul 08 2015

By Joseph C. Wylie II, Molly K. McGinley, and Nicole C. Mueller

The Sixth Circuit recently held that a facsimile which lacks commercial components on its face does not constitute an advertisement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and ruled that the possibility of remote economic benefit to a defendant is “legally irrelevant” to determining whether the fax violates the TCPA. The Sixth Circuit’s narrow rule stands out among decisions from other courts that have adopted an expansive interpretation of “advertisement” under the TCPA, and demonstrates that the scope of the TCPA is indeed subject to limitations.

In Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., the defendant, a pharmacy benefits manager, sent two unsolicited faxes to the plaintiff, a chiropractor. The faxes informed plaintiff that medications covered by defendant’s health plans could help lower costs for plaintiff’s patients, and directed plaintiff to a complete list of “plan-preferred medications” on defendant’s website. The faxes, however, did not promote defendant’s services or solicit business from plaintiff. Nor did the faxes contain pricing, ordering or sales information. Notably, defendant did not offer for sale any of the identified medicines, either in the faxes themselves or on defendant’s website.

Connecticut Mandates Identity Theft Services for SSN Data Breaches

Jul 06 2015

By: Holly K. Towle

On June 30, 2015, Connecticut’s governor signed into law an amendment to the state’s data-security-breach-notice statute to mandate “appropriate” identity theft prevention services for breaches involving social security numbers. Identity theft mitigation services are also required “if applicable” (e.g., if identify theft actually occurs). The services must be provided at no cost and for at least 12 months. The statute does not explain which identity theft “prevention” or “mitigation” services are mandated or which are “appropriate.”

Archive:July 2015