Maryland v. Universal Elections
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55883
D. Maryland2011Background
- Maryland sues Universal Elections, Julius Henson, and Rhonda Russell for TCPA violations due to 112,000 anonymous prerecorded calls on Election Day 2010.
- Defendants hired Robodial.org, uploaded the recording and recipient list, and directed Robodial to broadcast the call.
- Message did not identify the initiator or provide contact information; recipients were Maryland residents, many Democrats in Baltimore City/Prince George's County.
- Maryland alleges omission of identifying info to disguise purpose of calls and to influence votes for Ehrlich.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the State sought to enforce TCPA § 227(d) disclosure requirements; the court denied the motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are political robocalls exempt from TCPA disclosure? | Maryland argues § 227(d) applies to all auto-dialed calls, including political ones. | Defendants contend FCC exemption for political calls applies to disclosure requirements. | No exemption; § 227(d) applies to all auto-dialed calls. |
| Can TCPA liability attach if Robodial placed the calls? | Plaintiff contends § 227(d) liability extends to the caller who initiated and directed transmission. | Defendants argue Robodial, not they, made the calls; they should not be liable. | Yes; defendants may be liable as initiators/directors providing unlawful content. |
| Can individual defendants be liable under TCPA? | Henson and Russell are personally liable due to direct participation or authorization. | Individual officers are not liable absent personal participation. | Individuals may be personally liable if they directly participated or authorized the violation. |
| Is Robodial a required party under Rule 19(a)? | Robodial’s involvement could create joint liability; joinder should be feasible. | Robodial is not needed; joinder not required and no complete relief issue. | Robodial not required to be joined; action can proceed among existing parties. |
| Does TCPA § 227(d) violate the First Amendment? | Disclosure promotes an informed electorate and prevents deception in campaigns. | Disclosure is content-based and should be subject to strict scrutiny. | Section 227(d) is content-neutral and survives intermediate scrutiny; does not violate the First Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires plausible claims, not mere speculation)
- United States v. Playboy Entm't Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (U.S. 2000) (content-based challenge to broadcast regulation)