Roth Jackson | Legal Services - Richmond VA & McLean VARoth Jackson | Legal Services - Richmond VA & McLean VA
  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Richmond Office
      • E.G. Allen, III
      • Joseph P. Bowser
      • caroline e. browder
      • andrew m. condlin
      • sean m. gibbons
      • kim m. lacy
      • jennifer d. mullen
      • allyson martin sladic
      • C. Taylor Smith
      • Jennifer L. West
    • Tysons Office
      • genevieve c. bradley
      • Joseph P. Bowser
      • joseph f. jackson
      • ashley b. kyle
      • mitchell n. roth
      • Jennifer S. Varughese
  • What We Do
    • banking & finance
    • bankruptcy & creditor rights
    • commercial litigation
    • commercial real estate
    • corporate
    • direct marketing & regulatory compliance
    • employment & labor law
    • Immigration
    • land use & zoning
    • privacy and data security practice group
  • News & Insights
    • TCPA
    • Immigration News
    • Employment & Labor Law News
  • Community Outreach
  • Contact Us

Court Denies Class Certification in TCPA “Wrong Number” Case

December 21, 2018kthomas@rothjackson.comTCPA

Even in well-tended yards, weeds can emerge. Wrong numbers are the weeds of a well-tended TCPA compliance program. Notwithstanding your best efforts to cultivate and grow communications campaigns rooted in consumer consent, calls to wrong numbers are often inevitable. Numbers change hands after you receive consent to call that number. Professional plaintiffs bait you into calling them. And, particularly in debt-collection calls, you may be calling the right person, but your agent is told they have the ‘wrong number’ when they realize why they’re being called.

So while wrong-number TCPA cases are not uncommon, they should not expose us to TCPA class action liability (that’s not to say the plaintiffs’ bar won’t try). In Wilson v. Badcock Home Furniture, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida just issued an excellent opinion highlighting the key reasons why that is so. In Badcock, a consumer purchased some furniture on credit, but fell behind on their payments several years later. So Badcock made over 30 calls—not to the consumer who gave it consent to call, but rather to that phone number’s subsequent user, Plaintiff Ms. Wilson, who was using that phone number under a plan that her grandmother subscribed to. Ms. Wilson finally answered a call from Badcock to tell them they had the wrong number; but she had already filed her TCPA complaint two days earlier.

The plaintiff moved the court to certify a class of persons Badcock called for whom it had the wrong number, but the trial court denied the motion. The first flaw in plaintiff’s theory was that the class was even ‘ascertainable,’ one of the required elements of class certification. Plaintiff’s expert witness opined that she could do a reverse number look-up, but the court quickly saw the flaws in that approach. For one, all you learn, at best, is the subscriber’s name. Here, that would get you grandma, not the plaintiff. So you can subpoena the carrier all you want, and if the user of the phone number isn’t the subscriber of record, this method will not produce accurate results.

The second defect in this approach is the ‘multiple-hit’ problem. Two different consumers can provide the same phone number, and the company’s records may indicate that it is a ‘wrong number’ for one of those consumers. In this scenario, “a call to an otherwise consenting customer might be designated as ‘wrong number’ simply because Defendant had intended to call–and asked for—the other customer who provided the number.” And here Badcock produced examples of that very scenario, where an otherwise legitimate call was designated as ‘wrong number’ simply because they asked for the other user of the number, who had also consented to the calls.

The plaintiff argued that these issues could be overcome by simply asking the consumers through the claims-administration process. The court saw through the practical and constitutional pitfalls of that approach too. First, allowing potential claimants to simply self-report raises individualized issues of consent that makes class certification improper. Second, it raises insurmountable Due Process concerns. Here, this plaintiff would have been entitled to recover up to $45,000 for those 30 calls, and the process leaves the defendant vulnerable to the moral hazard of those too tempted by trading their signature for such a windfall. Third and finally, the system is built on evidence that is often inadmissible. The called party’s statement about a wrong number is often inadmissible hearsay.

This court rightly articulated why wrong-number TCPA cases should not be certified as class actions. Individualized issues of consent, and attendant Due Process concerns, demand that these types of TCPA cases be litigated solely on an individual basis.

By Joe Bowser

For more information contact Joe Bowser at jbowser@rothjackson.com or Visit Attorney Profile Here.

Recent Posts

  • Phone Hacked at Local Immigration Court
  • Important Reminder for Missing / Delayed RFEs
  • Uncertainty Surrounding Personal Jurisdiction and Purposeful Availment in TCPA cases post-Hood
  • Reminder for Employers with 100+ Employees, OSHA’s Vaccine/Weekly Testing Mandate Becomes Effective January 10, 2022

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Categories

Archives

  • August 2022
  • May 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • January 2020
  • June 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
Awarded in 2016, 2018, and 2019

find us at

Facebook
LinkedIn

Richmond

1519 Summit Avenue
Suite 102
Richmond, VA 23230

(804) 441-8440
(804) 441-8438

Tysons Corner

8200 Greensboro Drive
Suite 820
McLean, VA 22102

(703) 485-3535
(703) 485-3525

  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Richmond Office
      • E.G. Allen, III
      • Joseph P. Bowser
      • caroline e. browder
      • andrew m. condlin
      • sean m. gibbons
      • kim m. lacy
      • jennifer d. mullen
      • allyson martin sladic
      • C. Taylor Smith
      • Jennifer L. West
    • Tysons Office
      • genevieve c. bradley
      • Joseph P. Bowser
      • joseph f. jackson
      • ashley b. kyle
      • mitchell n. roth
      • Jennifer S. Varughese
  • What We Do
    • banking & finance
    • bankruptcy & creditor rights
    • commercial litigation
    • commercial real estate
    • corporate
    • direct marketing & regulatory compliance
    • employment & labor law
    • Immigration
    • land use & zoning
    • privacy and data security practice group
  • News & Insights
    • TCPA
    • Immigration News
    • Employment & Labor Law News
  • Community Outreach
  • Contact Us
© 2018 Roth Jackson Gibbons Condlin, PLCFreshySites
Terms and Conditions
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING: Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case.
Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.