State of Maryland v. Universal Elections, Incorporated
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15350
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Political campaign of Ehrlich hired Henson and Universal Elections to assist with the 2010 Maryland gubernatorial race.
- On Election Day, Henson and Russell prepared a pre-recorded robocall that did not identify the sponsor or include a sponsor phone number.
- Robodial.org placed the robocall to over 112,000 Maryland Democratic voters using lists uploaded by Russell and Universal Elections.
- Approximately 69,497 recipients heard the full message; about 16,976 heard only part of it; others did not answer or the call failed.
- Maryland filed suit under the TCPA on November 10, 2010; district court denied motions to dismiss and eventually granted summary judgment for the State.
- The district court held Henson, Russell, and Universal Elections jointly and severally liable for TCPA violations and awarded $1,010,000 in damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of TCPA as applied to political robocalls | Henson argues content-based burden on political speech. | State argues TCPA is content-neutral and narrowly tailored. | Constitutionality sustained; TCPA provisions upheld as content-neutral and intermediate scrutiny compliant. |
| Whether the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss | Complaint failed to show Maryland recipients; Maryland not required by TCPA. | TCPA applies to all prerecorded messages; sponsors must be identifiable. | District court properly denied dismissal; TCPA applies and sponsors may be identified as required. |
| Whether the district court properly denied the motion to stay | Civil case should wait on parallel criminal prosecutions. | Stays are appropriate when parallel criminal issues exist. | Denial of stay affirmed; stays not required absent compelling justification. |
| Whether summary judgment against Henson/Universal Elections was proper | Evidence shows creation and dissemination of robocall without sponsor disclosure. | Robodial.org and others may bear liability; joint liability plausible but disputed. | Summary judgment affirmed; undisputed facts show TCPA violation by defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (content-neutral regulation subject to intermediate scrutiny)
- Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984) (content neutrality and speech regulation framework)
- O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (test for substantial governmental interests in regulation of speech)
- Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) (sanctity of the home and expressive regulation)
- Nat’l Fed’n for the Blind v. F.T.C., 420 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 2005) (residential privacy and narrowly tailored regulation)
- Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n for the Blind of N.C., 487 U.S. 781 (1988) (fraud prevention and disclosure interests)
- Balt.-Wash. Tel. Co. v. Hot Leads Co., 584 F. Supp. 2d 736 (D. Md. 2008) (personal liability under TCPA)