Griffith v. Consumer Portfolio Serv., Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91231
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Griffith and Cain allege unauthorized calls and texts to their cellular phones from CPS, a sub-prime auto-finance lender.
- The sole issue is whether CPS uses an “automatic telephone dialing system” under TCPA § 227(a).
- CPS uses Castel dialers in each office, connected to CPS’s network and a private branch exchange to call multiple customers.
- A computer program identifies CPS customers eligible for a dialing campaign and copies their numbers into a Dialer File the night before campaigns.
- On campaign day, a supervisor inputs criteria; the program creates a Logical View File from which numbers are dialed.
- During dialing, a predictive-dialing rate governs calls; answered calls are routed to collectors and account info is updated in the CPS system.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CPS uses an automatic telephone dialing system | Griffith/Cain contend CPS employs an ATDS. | CPS argues the Castel dialer cannot generate numbers randomly or sequentially. | CPS uses an ATDS under TCPA. |
| Whether predictive dialing with a database falls within ATDS under FCC orders | Griffith/Cain rely on FCC rulings extending ATDS to predictive dialers with databases. | CPS maintains FCC orders narrowly interpreted to require random/sequential generation. | Predictive dialers with databases are ATDS per FCC orders. |
| Whether TCPA applies to debt-collection calls, not just telemarketing | Calls to wireless numbers violate § 227(b)(1) regardless of content. | Certain provisions apply only to solicitations and are not debt collection. | § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) applies to debt-collection calls without emergency or prior express consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejects narrower interpretations of ATDS under TCPA)
- CE Design Ltd. v. Prism Bus. Media, Inc., 606 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2010) (FCC orders binding; application of ATDS to dialing equipment)
- Bourne v. Marty Gilman, Inc., 452 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2006) (expert testimony must be based on admissible evidence; conclusory assertions not enough)