Bais Yaakov v. Alloy, Inc.
936 F. Supp. 2d 272
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- This is a putative TCPA/GBL class action arising from unsolicited faxes Channel One sent to Plaintiff and others.
- Channel One is a teen-focused national news network that provides free programming to schools funded by two minutes of commercials.
- Plaintiff alleges at least 18 faxes between Feb. 19, 2008 and Feb. 16, 2011, with Group One lacking proper opt-out notices and Group Two having allegedly deficient opt-out notices.
- Plaintiff seeks Class A (unsolicited with defective opt-out), Class B (solicited with defective opt-out), and Class C (NY residents with defective opt-out) relief, plus statutory damages and injunctive relief.
- Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and seek dismissal of class allegations under CPLR 901(b); Plaintiff argues Rule 23 governs class treatment and federal standards apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TCPA claims can proceed as a class action | Giovanniello governs; Fed. Rule 23 controls | CPLR 901(b) bars class action for statutory penalties | Denied; no prejudice to renewal after Giovanniello decision (pending on remand) |
| Which statute of limitations applies to the TCPA claim | Section 1658(a) four-year period governs federal statutory actions | Borrowed state limitation (CPLR 215(3)) applies | Applied 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a); claims timely under first fax date 2008 |
| Whether faxes are “advertisements” under TCPA and/or GBL § 396-aa | Faxes promote Channel One’s programming and sponsors’ goods/services | Some content informational; may not violate TCPA/GBL | Faxes are TCPA advertisements; do not violate GBL § 396-aa; state-law claim dismissed |
| Whether opt-out notice violations support private TCPA claim despite ‘diligence’ doctrines | Section 227(b)(3) provides private action for opt-out violations | No private right under Section 227(d); only regulation-based claims | First three causes survive on opt-out grounds; Section 227(b)(3) permits claim; solicited notices require opt-out per FCC rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Giovanniello v. ALM Media, LLC, 660 F.3d 587 (2d Cir. 2011) (holds TCPA may require state-law limits on class actions (vacated on remand))
- Holster v. Gatco, Inc., 618 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2010) (discusses class-action viability under TCPA before remand)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (Rule 23 governs class actions in federal court despite state-law limits on class actions)
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975) (tests existence of private rights of action; Cort framework cited for private-right interpretation)
- Adler v. Vision Lab Telecomms., Inc., 393 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2005) (recognizes private right under TCPA § 227(b)(3) for violations of its regulations)