A Fast Sign Co. v. American Home Services, Inc.
291 Ga. 844
| Ga. | 2012Background
- AHS contracted with Sunbelt to send 318,000 unsolicited faxes to Atlanta area machines.
- AFast Sign Co. (Fastsigns) filed a class action under the TCPA in October 2003.
- The trial court found AHS violated the TCPA and awarded $459 million ($1,500 per fax).
- The trial court held the violation was wilful and knowing and declined punitive damages and fees.
- The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding liability/damages hinged on receipts rather than sends.
- This Court granted certiorari to decide whether receipt is required for a TCPA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TCPA liability requires actual receipt of a fax. | Fastsigns argues liability attaches to sending, not requiring receipt. | AHS argues liability should be tied to faxes received by recipients. | Receipt is not required; liability lies in sending the unsolicited ad. |
| Whether damages are per transmission sent or per transmission received. | Damages per sent fax unless otherwise restricted by statute. | Damages should track actual receipt. | Damages authorized for each sent unsolicited fax under the TCPA. |
| Whether the Court of Appeals correctly interpreted the TCPA’s language. | Garnett’s and related cases misapplied; statute forbids sending, not necessarily receiving. | Appellate court correctly interpreted the focus on receipts. | Court of Appeals erred; send-based liability governs. |
| Whether willful/knowingly violated TCPA permits treble damages. | Treble damages apply where willful/knowing. | Willfulness required to treble; not guaranteed. | Court retained the possibility of treble damages; remanded for remaining issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alea London Ltd. v. American Home Svcs., 638 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2011) (TCPA is a strict liability statute; liability for sending unsolicited faxes.)
- Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Group, Inc., 293 Kan. 285 (2011) (Sender liable for unsolicited ads even if not received.)
- Hinman v. M&M Rental Center, 545 F.Supp.2d 802 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (Receipts not required to state a TCPA claim.)
- Garnett's, Inc. v. Hammond, 279 Ga. 125 (Ga. 2005) (TCPA violated when plaintiff receives unsolicited fax; broader base of liability recognized.)
- First Nat. Collection Bureau v. Walker, 348 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. Ct. App. 2011) (Receipts vs. sends interpretation discussed in state context.)