Brian Lyngaas v. Curaden AG
992 F.3d 412
| 6th Cir. | 2021Background:
- In March 2016 Brian Lyngaas (a Michigan dentist) received two unsolicited fax advertisements promoting the Curaprox CS 5460 toothbrush.
- Curaden AG is a Swiss manufacturer; Curaden USA is its U.S. subsidiary that marketed Curaden products, purchased a target list, created the faxes, hired AdMax (which subcontracted WestFax) to broadcast them, and paid the invoices.
- Curaden AG and Curaden USA operated under an oral distribution arrangement mirroring a standard written distributor agreement; Curaden AG retained approval rights but did not review/approve the two faxes and lacked knowledge of the fax campaign.
- Lyngaas filed a TCPA class action alleging unsolicited fax ads; the district court found Curaden USA sent the faxes (TCPA violation), rejected piercing the corporate veil, found Curaden AG not a TCPA “sender,” excluded unauthenticated fax logs and expert opinions, certified a class, and created a claims-administration process.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed: personal jurisdiction over Curaden AG via Rule 4(k)(2) upheld; Curaden AG not liable as a “sender”; efaxes to computers fall within the TCPA; unauthenticated logs properly excluded; class certification and claims process affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Curaden AG | Curaden AG’s role in creating U.S. distribution and directing promotion makes it amenable to jurisdiction (or pierce veil re: Curaden USA). | Curaden AG lacks sufficient contacts with U.S./Michigan; no alter-ego relationship. | Jurisdiction proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) (contacts with U.S.); alter-ego not shown, so veil not pierced. |
| Alter-ego / veil piercing | Curaden USA was undercapitalized and controlled by Curaden AG; pierce veil to hold Curaden AG liable. | Entities kept separate books, offices, employees, and corporate formalities; no wrongful use of corporate form. | Veil piercing denied: undercapitalization alone insufficient; no fraud/wrongful conduct shown. |
| Curaden AG as TCPA “sender” (strict-liability theory) | Curaden AG’s product was advertised; FCC regulation’s “whose goods or services are advertised” prong imposes strict liability on manufacturer. | Sender requires dispatching or causing the faxes to be sent (e.g., hiring broadcaster); mere manufacture/authorization to promote isn’t enough. | Curaden AG not a sender: lacked knowledge/involvement and did not cause the transmissions; TCPA does not impose strict liability on manufacturer here. |
| Scope of “telephone facsimile machine” under TCPA | Plaintiff: TCPA reaches faxes received by computers/efaxes; statutory definition and FCC rulings support that. | Defendants: TCPA protects only traditional fax machines, not computers/efaxes. | Held that statutory text and FCC precedent treat fax servers/efaxes received via telephone lines as covered; emails sent over the Internet are not covered. |
| Admissibility of fax-summary logs & expert testimony | Logs and expert analysis establish classwide transmissions and numerosity; court should consider at certification. | Logs unauthenticated/computer-generated; hearsay/authentication and Daubert issues render them inadmissible. | District court did not abuse discretion excluding unauthenticated logs and expert opinion; Rule 901 authentication required; Daubert problems justified exclusion. |
| Class certification and absent-member jurisdiction (Bristol‑Myers extension) | Plaintiff: nationwide class may be certified; court’s jurisdiction need only be tested against named rep. | Curaden USA: Bristol‑Myers requires jurisdiction as to each absent class member; class must be narrowed to forum-state claims. | Sixth Circuit declines to extend Bristol‑Myers to federal Rule 23 class actions; certification and claims-administration process for nationwide class upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Health One Med. Ctr., Eastpointe P.L.L.C. v. Mohawk, Inc., 889 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2018) (manufacturer that neither dispatched nor caused faxes to be sent is not a TCPA "sender")
- Siding & Insulation Co. v. Alco Vending, Inc., 822 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 2016) (defendant that knowingly engaged a fax broadcaster was a TCPA sender)
- Imhoff Inv., L.L.C. v. Alfoccino, Inc., 792 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2015) (similar holding on causation/engagement of fax broadcaster)
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific-jurisdiction requires connection between forum and each plaintiff’s claim)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits on general jurisdiction; "at home" standard)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985) (due-process/opt-out rules and jurisdictional analysis in nationwide class actions)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (Rule 23 "rigorous analysis" and class representative doctrine)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony)