Teltech Systems, Incorporated v. Phil Bryan
702 F.3d 232
5th Cir.2012Background
- Mississippi enacted the Caller ID Anti-Spoofing Act (ASA) in 2010 to prohibit false information in caller ID with intent to deceive, punishable as a misdemeanor.
- TCIA (Truth in Caller ID Act) of 2009 prohibits misleading caller ID information in interstate telecommunications and creates a federal regulatory scheme.
- Plaintiffs Teltech Systems and Wonderland Rentals provide nationwide spoofing services and challenged ASA on preemption, dormant Commerce Clause, and First Amendment grounds.
- District Court held ASA violated the Dormant Commerce Clause but not preemption; First Amendment issue not reached.
- This court held ASA is conflict-preempted by TCIA, thereby affirming on preemption grounds and avoiding analysis of dormant Commerce Clause and First Amendment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does TCIA preempt ASA? | TCIA creates sole federal objective; ASA obstructs it | ASA harmonizes with TCIA; no obstacle to federal objectives | Yes; ASA conflict-preempted by TCIA |
| Does ASA violate the Dormant Commerce Clause? | ASA improperly regulates interstate spoofing outside Mississippi | No; independent state consumer protection power supports ASA | Not reached (preemption dispositive) |
| Does ASA raise First Amendment concerns? | ASA restricts speech in a manner inconsistent with the First Amendment | ASA serves legitimate consumer-protection interests | Not reached (preemption dispositive) |
Key Cases Cited
- Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc., 491 U.S. 324 (Supreme Court 1989) (preemption and extraterritorial regulatory concerns guide review)
- Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (Supreme Court 2008) (express vs. implied preemption depends on congressional intent)
- Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res., 461 U.S. 190 (Supreme Court 1983) (conflict preemption when state law obstructs federal objective)
- Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (Supreme Court 2012) (illustrates preemption analysis by examining federal scheme and state law interaction)
- Barnes ex rel. Estate of Barnes v. Koppers, Inc., 534 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2008) (legislative history can clarify congressional intent in preemption questions)
- Castro v. Collecto, Inc., 634 F.3d 779 (5th Cir. 2011) (state consumer protection regulation permissible in telecommunications)
- Elam v. Kan. City S. Ry., 635 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2011) (preemption analysis and federalism principles in railway context)
- English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72 (Supreme Court 1990) (presumption against preemption in states’ police power areas)
- Saxon v. Ga. Ass’n of Indep. Ins. Agents, Inc., 399 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir. 1968) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius in interpretation of statutory scope)