Baird v. Sabre Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11246
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Shaya Baird booked flights on Hawaiian Airlines’ website and entered her cellphone number in a “Contact Information” field labeled “At least one phone number is required.”
- About three weeks later, Sabre (a vendor contracted by Hawaiian to provide traveler notifications) sent one unsolicited text inviting Baird to reply “yes” to enroll in flight notifications; Baird did not respond and received no further texts.
- Baird sued Sabre under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), alleging the text was an unsolicited autodialed call to a cellular number without her prior express consent; she sought class treatment.
- Sabre moved for summary judgment, asserting Baird gave prior express consent by voluntarily providing her cellphone number to Hawaiian, and Sabre sent the text pursuant to Hawaiian’s vendor relationship.
- The court treated consent as an affirmative defense (defendant bears burden at trial) but applied FCC guidance (1992 FCC Order) and related authority to find that knowingly releasing a phone number constitutes prior express consent to be called for business communications.
- The court granted summary judgment for Sabre on the TCPA claim and related California UCL claim, dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, and awarded Sabre costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether providing a cellphone number when booking a flight constitutes "prior express consent" under the TCPA | Baird: giving the number was coerced by website requirement and does not communicate awareness or intent to consent to automated texts; at most implied consent | Sabre: voluntarily providing a phone number to a business is prior express consent under FCC guidance; contractor messages about the service fall within that consent | Held: Providing the number constituted prior express consent; Sabre entitled to summary judgment |
| Whether consent to the airline extends to contractor Sabre | Baird: consent to airline does not necessarily extend to third parties | Sabre: Sabre was Hawaiian’s vendor for flight notifications; reasonable consumers expect contractors may send communications | Held: Consent to airline covered communications by its vendor; Satterfield distinction inapplicable |
| Whether question of consent is factual (precluding summary judgment) | Baird: consent is a fact issue because she felt compelled and was unaware consent would include texts | Sabre: evidence shows voluntary provision and no genuine fact dispute | Held: No genuine factual dispute; court applied FCC rule and decided as matter of law for summary judgment |
| California UCL claim dependent on TCPA or §17538.41 | Baird: UCL claim asserted based on alleged TCPA violation and state statute | Sabre: Text was not a prohibited advertisement; statute exceptions and no TCPA violation | Held: UCL claim fails (based on TCPA dismissal and unrebutted §17538.41 arguments); summary judgment for Sabre |
Key Cases Cited
- Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing consent to one business from consent to unrelated third parties)
- Leckler v. CashCall, Inc., 554 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal.) (analyzing and criticizing FCC interpretation of prior express consent; later vacated on jurisdictional grounds)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard—reasonable jury requirement)
- U.S. West Commc’ns v. Hamilton, 224 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.) (deference to FCC interpretations under Hobbs Act jurisdictional rules)
- Self v. BellSouth Mobility, Inc., 700 F.3d 453 (11th Cir.) (discussing deference to FCC TCPA interpretations)