Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663

Background

Gomez sued Campbell-Ewald under the TCPA alleging unsolicited recruiting text(s) and sought treble statutory damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a putative nationwide class.
Campbell (a Navy contractor) had the Navy's approval to send texts only to recipients who "opted in"; Mindmatics (a subcontractor) actually sent the messages.
Before class-certification motion, Campbell served a Rule 68 offer and a separate settlement offer offering Gomez full individual relief (statutory damages/costs and a stipulated injunction) but denying liability; Gomez did not accept.
Campbell moved to dismiss for lack of Article III jurisdiction, arguing the unaccepted offer mooted Gomez’s individual claim (and thus the class action); the district court denied dismissal.
Campbell separately moved for summary judgment asserting derivative sovereign immunity as a federal contractor; the district court granted that motion but the Ninth Circuit reversed on both mootness and immunity grounds.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve (1) whether an unaccepted Rule 68/settlement offer can moot an individual claim and (2) whether a federal contractor enjoys derivative sovereign immunity from the TCPA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gomez)	Defendant's Argument (Campbell)	Held
Whether an unaccepted offer of complete relief moots the plaintiff's individual claim	An unaccepted offer is a mere proposal with no operative effect; rejection leaves the controversy live	An unaccepted Rule 68 offer that would fully satisfy the claim removes the plaintiff's stake and thus moots the case	An unaccepted offer/Rule 68 offer does not moot the plaintiff's claim; adversity remains absent acceptance or actual payment
Whether an unaccepted offer of relief to the named plaintiff moots putative class claims made before class certification	Named-plaintiff retains a live claim, so class-certification opportunity remains; offer to individual cannot extinguish class claims	If the named plaintiff's individual claim is fully satisfied by the offer, class claims are moot if no live representative remains	Offer to named plaintiff (if unaccepted) does not moot class claims; class process may proceed if representative's claim remains live
Whether deposit or payment (versus mere offer) is required to moot a claim	Mootness requires actual transfer/assurance of relief, not mere offer	An offer that will in fact be paid (given defendant’s means) can moot a claim even if unaccepted	Court did not decide whether payment or deposit would moot a claim; reserved that question for another case
Whether Campbell, as a government contractor, is entitled to derivative sovereign immunity from TCPA liability	Plaintiff: contractor not shielded when contractor allegedly violated federal law and government instructions	Campbell: Yearsley and related precedents protect contractors performing authorized government work from suit	Rejected derivative sovereign immunity; a contractor does not inherit the sovereign’s blanket immunity when it violates federal law or explicit government directions

Key Cases Cited

Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Constr. Co., 309 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1940) (contractor immune where work was authorized/directed by the Government and within Congress's power)
California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1893) (case held moot where defendant deposited full sum and state law treated deposit as payment)
U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1994) (court declined vacatur when case became moot by settlement; parties cannot manipulate jurisdictional outcomes)
Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87 (U.S. 2009) (claims for declaratory/injunctive relief can be moot where defendants have ceased the challenged conduct and plaintiffs received full relief)
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2013) (unilateral covenant not to sue that affords complete protection can render a dispute moot)