Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLP is now Arent Fox. Read the press release

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation

Arent Fox’s Communications & Technology team is a national leader in defending Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions.

Arent Fox’s Communications, Technology & Mobile team is a national leader in defending Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions. Our litigators have defended dozens of TCPA cases in courts across the country, and we understand the nuances between group text messaging, voice broadcast, and peer-to-peer cases. We know what an autodialer is and what it is not. We are intimately familiar with the history of the TCPA, the FCC and judicial interpretations, and the tactics often used by plaintiffs’ counsel across the country. Our team is strategic and sensible, and we strive to obtain the most efficient results possible.

We manage TCPA cases quickly and nimbly to avoid exposing our clients to unnecessary costs. For example, we know when to move to dismiss, when to seek an early motion for summary judgment, and when to move quickly to defeat class certification. Our results speak for themselves with voluntary dismissals of many claims without the need for costly motions practice or discovery. Multiple courts have granted our motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment on issues of first impression.

Further, the Arent Fox team has been continuously involved in rulemaking and policy proceedings before the FCC on matters involving the TCPA. Our team is deeply involved in proceedings involving the application of the TCPA regulations to new services and in efforts to favorably clarify the regulatory status of SMS and MMS messaging. And just as importantly, our team counsels brands across industries on TCPA and CTIA compliance and best practices to avoid litigation in the first place.

Our Work

  • Davis v. Post University, Inc., 9:18-cv-81004- RKA (S.D. Fla. 2018) (currently defending University client in potential $200 million do-not-call TCPA class action lawsuit)
  • Larson v. Harman Harman-Management Corp., No. 1:16-cv- 00219-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal. 2019) (client voluntarily dismissed from TCPA autodialer class action after filing motion for summary judgment)
  • Klueh v. Paul Vallas for All Chicago, 1:19- cv-00249 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (defending campaign committee and technology company against claims they sent unsolicited autodialed text messages)
  • Green v. Chicago Athletic Clubs, LLC, 1:19-cv-02129 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (defended gym chain against unsolicited autodialed telemarketing claims)
  • Maltman v. Chicago Athletic Clubs, LLC, 1:19-cv-01872 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (same)
  • Rivero v. Greenbrook Sports & Fitness, LLC, 3:18-cv-10329-BRM-LHG (D.N.J. 2019) (quickly resolved putative TCPA class action lawsuit against New Jersey gym chain)
  • Bezdikian v. Valley Gym Corp., No. 3:18-cv-4372 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed client rather than respond to motions for sanctions in autodialer case)
  • Frank v. South Aiken Fitness, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-02452 (D.S.C. 2019) (same)
  • Weisberg v. Stripe, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00584-JST (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2016) (obtained dismissal of autodialer claims on motion to dismiss for payment processing company because texts were specifically targeted to plaintiff)
  • Mendez v. C-Two Group, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-5914-HSG, (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2014) (won motion to dismiss against TCPA autodialer claims)
  • Rinky Dink, Inc. v. Elec. Merch. Sys., Civ. No. 13-1347-JCC, 2015 WL 778065 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 24, 2015) (won complete victory for client on summary judgment)
  • Rutherford v. Zoom Tan, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-509-FtM-29DNF, 2013 WL 4001343 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2013) (won motion to dismiss for text messaging platform operator on grounds that no personal jurisdiction existed based on customer’s decision to send texts to residents of state)
  • Payton v. Kale Realty, LLC, 164 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1058 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (same)
  • Kauffman v. CallFire, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1044 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2015) (same)
  • Smith v. Securus, CIV No. 15-550-SRN-HB, 2015 WL 4636696, *8 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2015) (same)
  • Sloan v. Securus Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-2874 (S.D. Ind.) (voluntarily dismissed client after serving Plaintiff’s counsel with Rule 11 motion)
  • Glauser v. GroupMe., No. 4:11-cv-2584 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2014) (negotiated voluntarily dismissal of client)
  • Luna v. Shac, LLC, 122 F. Supp. 3d 936, 941 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2015) (client was voluntarily dismissed after establishing that client was not providing its users an autodialer)
  • Ryan v. Jersey Mike’s Franchise Systems, No. 13-cv-1427 (S. D. Cal.) (plaintiff voluntarily dismissed case)
  • Shay v. CallFire, Inc., No. 14-cv-1257 (S.D. Cal.) (case was voluntarily dismissed)
  • Couser v. Pre-Paid Legal Services, No. 3:12-cv-2575 (S.D. Cal.) (same)
  • Salcedo v. Diamond, No. 14-cv-6291 (S.D. Fla.) (same)
  • Malik v. F-19 Holdings, LLC, No. 5:15-cv-130 (E.D.Ky. Nov. 16, 2015) (after filing a motion to dismiss establishing that client could not be liable and that plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed case rather than respond to motion to dismiss)
  • Bittings v. Tele-Town Hall, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-9519 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2017) (client voluntarily dismissed before needing to file answer)

Key Contacts