708 F.3d 737
6th Cir.2013Background
- KDMC sued SEIU over a two-day robo-call campaign targeting KDMC residents.
- Calls delivered a prerecorded message criticizing KDMC’s plans and directing listeners to press '1' to reach KDMC CEO Fred Jackson.
- A single origin number in Ohio appeared on call logs for calls patched through to Jackson.
- KDMC alleges the campaign overwhelmed hospital emergency lines and other extensions.
- District court dismissed KDMC’s TCPA claims as not reaching the Act’s scope; KDMC appealed.
- Court must decide if KDMC plausibly alleged violations of §227(b)(1)(A) or §227(b)(1)(D) (and related §227(b)(1)(B)/(d) claims) under TCPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KDMC plausibly pled §227(b)(1)(A) violation. | KDMC contends SEIU made prohibited calls by connecting residents to Jackson. | SEIU argues KDMC did not receive an 'emergency' call from the SEIU; no direct communication occurred. | No plausible §227(b)(1)(A) claim. |
| Whether KDMC plausibly pled §227(b)(1)(D) violation. | KDMC asserts the robo-call system used to tie up multiple lines violated §227(b)(1)(D). | SEIU contends KDMC did not receive automated calls to its lines; calls to Jackson were initiated by residents. | No plausible §227(b)(1)(D) claim. |
| Whether KDMC plausibly pled §227(b)(1)(B) or §227(d)(3) claims. | KDMC argues prerecorded residential calls without express consent and improper disclosures violated TCPA. | FCC exemptions apply for non-commercial calls by tax-exempt organizations; private right of action for §227(d)(3) does not exist. | §227(b)(1)(B) viable only if not exempt; exemption applies; §227(d)(3) lacks private action; claims not reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009) (definition of 'make any call' includes communication via automated system)
- Maryland v. Universal Elections, 787 F.Supp.2d 408 (D. Md. 2011) (statutory interpretation of TCPA provisions using general language)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2004) (contextual interpretation of elastic statutory language)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1997) (language contextualization in statutory interpretation)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading )