John Salcedo v. Alex Hanna
936 F.3d 1162
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- On August 12, 2016 John Salcedo received a single unsolicited promotional text from attorney Alex Hanna and sued as a putative class representative under the TCPA, seeking statutory and treble damages.
- Salcedo alleged the text wasted his time, made his phone unavailable for other pursuits, invaded his privacy, and diminished his phone’s utility; he did not allege any monetary costs from the message or that it was received at home.
- The district court found Salcedo had Article III standing and allowed an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Hanna appealed the standing determination.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed standing de novo and framed the main question as whether receipt of a single unsolicited text message, in violation of the TCPA, constitutes a concrete injury in fact.
- Applying Spokeo’s instruction to assess concreteness by reference to history and the judgment of Congress, the court concluded Salcedo’s allegations described only a fleeting, intangible annoyance not analogous in kind or degree to traditional causes of action.
- The court reversed, holding Salcedo lacked Article III standing and remanded with instructions to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice; Judge Pryor concurred in the narrow judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether receipt of a single unsolicited TCPA text message is a concrete injury in fact | Salcedo: a text wasted his time, made his phone unavailable, invaded privacy — statutory violation suffices to confer standing | Hanna: a single unsolicited text is only an ephemeral annoyance and not a concrete, Article III injury | No — receipt of one text, as pleaded, does not allege a concrete injury in fact and so Salcedo lacks standing |
| Whether congressional judgment and history support treating the alleged harm as concrete | Salcedo: TCPA protects against unsolicited contacts and Congress recognized privacy/nuisance harms from telemarketing | Hanna: TCPA concerns were focused on home intrusion and device-occupying faxes; Congress has not identified single texts as traditional harms | Court: judgment of Congress and statutory history do not support treating a single text as a concrete harm |
| Whether analogous traditional torts (intrusion, nuisance, trespass to chattel) supply historical pedigree for injury | Salcedo: unsolicited contact maps to privacy and nuisance torts | Hanna: traditional torts require more systematic or substantial invasions (repeated intrusion, property interference) | Court: traditional torts are materially different in kind/degree; single text lacks close historical analogue |
| Whether prior circuit precedent compels standing | Salcedo: cites cases finding standing from single violations or intangible harms | Hanna: earlier TCPA/fax cases and Spokeo require concrete, not merely statutory, harms | Court: Eleventh Circuit precedent (e.g., Palm Beach Golf) is distinguishable; receipt of a single text is unlike a fax occupying a machine, so standing not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, traceability, redressability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (statutory violation does not automatically satisfy concreteness; consult history and Congress)
- Palm Beach Golf Center–Boca, Inc. v. John G. Sarris, D.D.S., P.A., 781 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir.) (junk fax that occupied machine can establish injury in fact)
- Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir.) (receipt of unsolicited text messages held to be concrete injury)
- Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (text messages qualify as "calls" under §227(b)(1)(A)(iii))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (court need not accept legal conclusions pleaded as facts)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (Article III standing limits judicial power)
- Nicklaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 839 F.3d 998 (statutory violation without concrete harm can fail for standing)
- Perry v. Cable News Network, Inc., 854 F.3d 1336 (standing recognized for certain privacy statutory claims)