The Florence Endocrine Clinic, PLLC v. Arriva Medical, LLC, 858 F.3d 1362

Arriva Medical supplies medical products by mail and requires physician confirmation to obtain insurance reimbursement for items ordered by patients.
After patients ordered products, Arriva faxed physicians at The Florence Endocrine Clinic order forms (and sometimes product info) requesting completion to facilitate shipment and reimbursement.
The clinic sued under the TCPA, alleging those unsolicited faxes were "unsolicited advertisements" sent in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C), and sought class certification for similar recipients.
Arriva moved to dismiss, arguing lack of Article III standing and that the faxes were not advertisements because they did not attempt to sell or market to physicians.
The district court found the clinic had standing but dismissed for failure to state a claim, holding the faxes were not unsolicited advertisements because they related to orders already placed by patients.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing the faxes requested order confirmation for patient-initiated purchases and did not promote the sale of Arriva products to the clinic.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the clinic has Article III standing to sue under the TCPA	Clinic: Receiving unsolicited faxes occupied its fax line and imposed printing costs, creating concrete injury	Arriva: Complaint alleges only statutory violation, no concrete, particularized injury	Held: Clinic has standing — TCPA confers a concrete right; unsolicited fax occupied the machine and imposed costs
Whether the faxes qualify as "unsolicited advertisements" under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5)	Clinic: Faxes promoted Arriva's goods/services and lacked proper opt-out notices, so are advertisements	Arriva: Faxes simply requested physician confirmation for patient-initiated orders and did not aim to sell to or market to physicians	Held: Faxes are not "advertisements" — they were requests to complete orders already placed by specific patients, not efforts to promote sales to physicians

Palm Beach Golf Ctr.-Boca, Inc. v. John G. Sarris, D.D.S., P.A., 781 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2015) (TCPA creates a cognizable right and unsolicited faxes can cause concrete injury)
Doe v. Pryor, 344 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for motions to dismiss)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing requires a concrete and particularized injury)
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (Article III case-or-controversy requirement)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (elements of constitutional standing)
Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Medco Health Sols., Inc., 788 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 2015) (to be an advertisement, a communication must promote goods or services with a profit aim)
Elan Pharm. Research Corp. v. Emp’rs Ins. of Wausau, 144 F.3d 1372 (11th Cir. 1998) (communications encouraging doctors to prescribe drugs can qualify as advertising)