Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
788 F.3d 218
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Medco Health Solutions, a pharmacy benefit manager, faxed two documents to Sandusky Wellness Center: a "Formulary Notification" and a "Formulary Update," listing plan-preferred drugs and indicating potential patient cost savings.
- The faxes contained no pricing, ordering information, solicitation for Medco's services, or explicit sales offers; they primarily informed providers which drugs were covered by patients' plans.
- Sandusky sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C), claiming the unsolicited faxes were prohibited "advertisements."
- The district court granted summary judgment for Medco, finding the faxes informational rather than commercial and called the suit borderline frivolous; Sandusky appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the faxes qualify as "advertisements" under the TCPA definition and whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Rule 56(d) discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the faxes are "advertisements" under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5) | Any material that "makes known" availability or quality is an advertisement; faxes publicize drug availability | An "advertisement" must have commercial components: promote goods/services for sale with profit as an aim; these faxes are purely informational | Not advertisements; summary judgment for Medco affirmed |
| Whether agency (FCC) interpretation controls | Broad TCPA interpretation favors covering these faxes | Statutory text is unambiguous; no deference required; FCC rules, if considered, support Medco | No Chevron deference needed; FCC rules, if applied, also support finding informational content |
| Whether extrinsic evidence of Medco's past business or speculative downstream benefits can convert faxes into ads | Past conduct and possible remote economic benefits create factual dispute on commercial purpose | Hypothetical or ancillary future benefits are legally irrelevant; inquiry focuses on fax content | Extrinsic/speculative effects insufficient to create genuine issue; four-corners inquiry controls |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying Rule 56(d) discovery | Requested discovery into Medco's pecuniary interest and advertising practices was necessary to oppose summary judgment | Evidence sought would be irrelevant to whether the faxes themselves were commercial; 56(d) affidavit was inadequate | No abuse of discretion: sought evidence legally irrelevant, affidavit vague/unsworn, denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- N.B. Indus., Inc. v. Wells Fargo & Co., [citation="465 F. App'x 640"] (9th Cir. 2012) (fax not an advertisement where item discussed was not commercially available for purchase)
- Ira Holtzman, C.P.A. v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2013) (fax that plugs sender's services and contact info is an advertisement)
- Nat'l Cable & Telecomm. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (agency interpretations get Chevron deference only when statute is ambiguous)
- Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622 (1988) (remedial purpose alone does not justify construing statutory language beyond its text)