Joel D. Lucoff v. Navient Solutions, LLC, 981 F.3d 1299

Lucoff consolidated federal student loans serviced by Navient; SAC provided default-aversion services.
He was an absent member of the 2010 Arthur class settlement that deemed consent to calls unless a revocation form was submitted; he did not submit a revocation.
In 2012 Lucoff faxed an automatic debit authorization to SAC that included language authorizing automated/prerecorded calls to his cell.
On June 24, 2014 Lucoff told a Navient agent on the phone that his cell number was his and answered “no” when asked whether Navient could use an autodialer/prerecorded messages; while still on that call he filled out an online demographic form that contained a clear consent clause and submitted it.
Navient and SAC thereafter placed about 1,967 automated/prerecorded calls to Lucoff’s cell; Lucoff sued under the TCPA. The district court granted summary judgment for Navient and SAC; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed based on Lucoff’s reconsent via the online form.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lucoff reconsented by submitting the online demographic form after orally revoking on the phone	Lucoff: oral "no" revoked consent; the later form was misleading so any submission was not valid consent	Navient: the form unambiguously authorized automated/prerecorded calls and Lucoff submitted it, so he reconsented	Court: Reconsent was effective; submission constituted prior express consent
Whether consent in the Arthur class settlement was unilaterally revocable	Lucoff: he could revoke consent; settlement notice inaction shouldn’t bind him	Navient: Arthur settlement consent was contractual consideration and not unilaterally revocable under Medley	Court: Did not decide—affirmed on reconsent ground, so issue unnecessary to resolve
Whether the online form was deceptive or misleading such that consent was invalid	Lucoff: form wording, placement, autofill, and timing were deceptive/coercive	Navient: consent language was same-font, visible above submit button, cell number was optional and editable	Court: Form was not misleading; consent language unambiguous and effective
Whether summary judgment was improper because factual disputes existed	Lucoff: jury should resolve credibility and "knew or should have known" revocation issues	Navient: material facts undisputed; judge can apply legal standard	Court: No genuine dispute on material facts; summary judgment appropriate

Medley v. Dish Network, LLC, 958 F.3d 1063 (11th Cir. 2020) (contractual consent in a bargained-for term may be not unilaterally revocable)
Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., 948 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2020) (definition and limits of an ATDS under the TCPA)
Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank, 866 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2017) (consent revocation standard: when actor knows or should know consent ended)
Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2014) (common-law consent principles apply to TCPA consent)
Murphy v. DCI Biologicals Orlando, LLC, 797 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2015) (providing a phone number on a form can constitute TCPA consent)
Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 768 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment appropriate where no factual dispute over consent)
Desnick v. American Broadcasting Cos., 44 F.3d 1345 (7th Cir. 1995) (consent procured by misrepresentation or misleading omission is ineffective)