Imhoff Investment, L.L.C. v. Alfoccino, Inc.
792 F.3d 627
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Avio, Inc. sues Alfoccino under the TCPA for unsolicited faxes sent via B2B to Avio and 7,624 other recipients.
- District court granted summary judgment, holding Avio lacked Article III standing and Alfoccino wasn't directly liable (only vicariously liable).
- B2B, operated by Caroline Abraham, faxed Alfoccino ads after Tony Shushtari directed 20,000 faxes; logs show transmissions to Avio on 11/13/2006 and 12/4/2006.
- Alfoccino paid B2B and Tony controlled marketing; there is no evidence Tony instructed B2B on consent or that B2B's documents certified legality.
- FCC regulation defines sender as the entity on whose behalf a fax is sent or whose goods/services are advertised; the district court applied DISH Network (telemarketing) law, which the opinion rejects as inapplicable to fax transmissions.
- The Sixth Circuit reverses, holding Avio has standing and Alfoccino may be directly liable as the sender under FCC regulations; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under TCPA | Avio is a recipient injured by faxes. | Avio lacks concrete injury without printing/reading faxes. | Avio has Article III standing. |
| Direct liability under TCPA for faxes | Sender definition makes Alfoccino directly liable as advertiser. | Fax broadcaster liability implied, not direct sender liability. | Alfoccino may be directly liable as the sender. |
| Vicarious liability vs. direct liability framework | Vicarious liability could apply through agency principles. | DISH Network framework governs only voice calls, not faxes; vicarious liability insufficient. | Direct liability authority governs; vicarious liability not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Lake City Indus. Prods., 757 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2014) (no standing need to prove printing; logs show successful transmission to recipient)
- Palm Beach Golf Ctr.-Boca, Inc. v. Sarris, 781 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2015) (standing requires injury from sending/facility occupation, not printing)
- Holtzman v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2013) (standing established by transmission/occupancy of fax machine)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (no advisory opinions; standing principles)