Chavez v. Advantage Group, 959 F. Supp. 2d 1279

Plaintiff received medical services from Parkview and provided her cellular number when requesting services; Parkview assigned the unpaid debt to defendant for collection.
Plaintiff alleges defendant called her cell using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) without prior express consent, violating the TCPA.
Defendant moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of the TCPA claims; court assumed arguendo that the dialing system might be an ATDS but focused on consent and related legal issues.
Defendant relied on the FCC’s 2008 Ruling that providing a cell number to a creditor evidences prior express consent to be contacted about the debt.
Plaintiff argued she did not consent (and relied on Mais to challenge the FCC ruling) and alternatively argued she revoked consent orally by telling defendant to stop calling.
The court concluded plaintiff had given prior express consent by providing the number and that oral revocation is ineffective under the TCPA; it granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the TCPA claims with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant used an ATDS	Chavez disputes or questions capacity; evidence suggests system may be predictive	Defendant contends its system lacks ATDS capacity	Court assumed arguendo ATDS exists (genuine fact issue remains) but resolved case on consent grounds
Whether provision of cell number constituted prior express consent under TCPA	Chavez argues FCC 2008 Ruling is reviewable and does not control; she did not consent	Defendant argues supplying the cell number to creditor constitutes express consent per FCC ruling	Court held supplying the number constituted prior express consent and that the FCC ruling binding on district courts
Whether district courts may review FCC’s 2008 Ruling	Chavez (relying on Mais) argues district courts can review and decline deference to FCC ruling	Defendant argues only courts of appeals have authority to set aside FCC orders; district courts must follow FCC ruling	Court held it lacked jurisdiction to set aside FCC order and declined to adopt Mais; treated FCC ruling as binding on district courts
Whether oral revocation of consent is effective	Chavez asserts she orally revoked consent by telling collectors to stop calling	Defendant argues consent cannot be withdrawn orally under TCPA; any revocation not effective absent statutory basis	Court held oral revocation ineffective; prior express consent could not be withdrawn and TCPA provides no mechanism for oral revocation

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (genuine-issue-of-fact standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and summary judgment standard)
Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (ATDS capacity interpretation)
Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (district court review of FCC ruling; court declined to follow)
Saunders v. NCO Financial Sys., Inc., 910 F. Supp. 2d 464 (holding express consent under TCPA cannot be withdrawn)
Beal v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 956 F. Supp. 2d 962 (discussing oral revocation permissibility; court here disagreed)
Adamcik v. Credit Control Servs., Inc., 832 F. Supp. 2d 744 (permitting revocation under certain theories; court here rejected)