Soppet v. ENHANCED RECOVERY CO., LLC
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9560
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- TCPA restricts automated calls to cell phones; this suit concerns calls to two cell numbers that were reassigned.
- Soppet and Tang sued Enhanced Recovery under § 227(b)(3) for calls to their numbers; they never consented to automated calls.
- Enhanced Recovery argued consent follows the number and travels with reassignment, so calls to new subscribers remain authorized.
- District court certified a class; it held consent persists with the original subscriber, possibly through to new user.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated/affirmed the district court’s focus on who is the current subscriber; “called party” means current subscriber.
- FCC interpretations were considered but not controlling on the meaning of “called party” in § 227(b)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of called party in §227(b)(1) | Called party is the current subscriber | Called party could be intended recipient or original holder | Called party means current subscriber at call time |
| Consent duration after number reassignment | Consent lasts even after reassignment | Consent does not persist after reassignment | Consent cannot be perpetual; current subscriber governs consent |
| FCC regulations vs. statute on called party | FCC order supports current-subscriber reading | FCC lacks definitive interpretation on reassignment impact | FCC interpretation not controlling on called party meaning |
Key Cases Cited
- Jahn v. 1-800-FLOWERS.com, Inc., 284 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2002) (consent and number assignment concepts relevant to consent scope)
- Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 F.3d 807 (U.S. 1980) (absurdity doctrine and statutory interpretation guidance)
- Jaskolski v. Daniels, 427 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2005) (textual vs. purposive interpretation in statutory reading)
- Spivey v. Vertrue, Inc., 528 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 2008) (interpretation of consent and notification under TCPA)