Robert W. Mauthe, M.D. P.C. v. Optum, Inc.
925 F.3d 129
| 3rd Cir. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C. sued Optum, Inc. and OptumInsight, Inc. under the TCPA for receiving an unsolicited fax and added a state common‑law conversion claim.
- Defendants operate a national provider database and send unsolicited faxes to healthcare providers to verify and update provider information used by third‑party purchasers of the database.
- The fax notified recipients it was data‑maintenance, not a sales solicitation, and stated there was no cost to participate.
- District Court granted summary judgment for defendants on the TCPA claim and dismissed the state claim without prejudice; this appeal followed.
- The core dispute is whether a non‑sales, database‑verification fax can constitute an “unsolicited advertisement” under the TCPA, including as a form of third‑party‑based liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fax was an "unsolicited advertisement" under the TCPA | Fax should be an advertisement because it was sent for a profit‑motivated commercial purpose (to improve a database sold to third parties) | Fax was data‑maintenance, expressly not a sales solicitation, and did not promote goods/services to recipients | Fax was not an "advertisement"; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether TCPA imposes third‑party‑based liability when fax targets intermediaries (not direct purchasers) | Liability should extend where fax aims to improve product sold to third parties and thereby influence third‑party purchasing | TCPA liability requires a nexus to influencing a purchaser's decision; mere profit motive insufficient | Court adopts a three‑part test for third‑party liability and rejects Mauthe’s claim because fax lacked nexus to influencing buyers |
| Standard for third‑party‑based TCPA liability | Broader definition: commercial motive alone suffices | Narrower definition: fax must (1) promote/enhance product or service sold; (2) be calculated to increase profits; and (3) directly/indirectly encourage recipient to influence third‑party purchasing | Court requires all three elements; Mauthe failed to show the third element (no encouragement to influence purchases) |
| Pretext theory (fax as pretext for later solicitation) | Fax was a pretext to enable later advertising faxes | No evidence of intent to send future advertisements; current fax not a pretext | Court rejects pretext claim for lack of evidence of contemplated future advertising |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state claim after dismissal of federal claim | Plaintiff urged continuation of state claim | District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after federal claim dismissed | Affirmed: decline appropriate absent extraordinary circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradley v. West Chester Univ. of Pa. State Sys. of Higher Educ., 880 F.3d 643 (3d Cir. 2018) (standard of appellate review for district court rulings)
- State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Pro Design, P.C., 566 F.3d 86 (3d Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard applied on appeal)
- Sconiers v. United States, 896 F.3d 595 (3d Cir. 2018) (summary judgment jurisprudence)
- Bright v. Westmoreland Cty., 380 F.3d 729 (3d Cir. 2004) (standards for declining supplemental jurisdiction)