Michael Chesbro v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
705 F.3d 913
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Chesbro purchased a computer in 2008 and enrolled in a no-interest payment plan; he provided contact information, including his phone number.
- The parties dispute whether Chesbro enrolled in Best Buy’s Reward Zone Program (RZP) at purchase; Best Buy claims signature, Chesbro claims he did not know or understand the enrollment.
- RZP members receive certificates and can redeem them toward future purchases; Best Buy contends RZP privacy policy allows program-related communications.
- Chesbro received several automated robocalls post-purchase and was allegedly on the national Do Not Call list; one November 2008 call from Best Buy is disputed as a courtesy message about certificate expiration.
- Chesbro complained to the Washington Attorney General about a November 11 call; Best Buy later placed him on its internal DNC list after the complaint.
- Best Buy removed the case to federal court under CAFA and moved for summary judgment; Chesbro opposed; district court granted summary judgment to Best Buy, and Chesbro appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the TCPA prohibit Best Buy’s automated calls to Chesbro? | Chesbro argues calls were unsolicited advertising and thus violate TCPA. | Best Buy contends calls were informational/dual-purpose and not ads. | No; court rules calls violated TCPA. |
| Are the calls also telemarketing under the TCPA DNC rules? | Chesbro contends calls constitute telemarketing in violation of DNC. | Best Buy asserts no telemarketing element or valid consent. | Yes; calls violated telemarketing and DNC provisions. |
| Do Washington WADAD, WCPA, and DNC provisions mirror TCPA violations here? | Chesbro argues state laws replicate TCPA violations. | Best Buy argues different statutory framework governs. | Yes; WADAD/WCPA/DNC were violated. |
| Did Chesbro consent or could consent defeat the claims on summary judgment? | Chesbro repeatedly asked not to be contacted; no consent. | Consent allegedly obtained via enrollment in RZP. | Consent not established; summary judgment reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment standard; de novo review on appeal)
- Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009) (deference to FCC interpretations of TCPA)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (tone of deference to agency interpretations)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (Sup. Ct. 1944) (persuasive weight of agency interpretations)