Thomas v. Taco Bell Corp.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107097
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- TCPA claim by Trade Thomas on behalf of herself and similarly situated plaintiffs against Taco Bell for text messages.
- Association (Chicago Area Taco Bell Local Owners Advertising Association) conducted the campaign; Ipsh and ESW assisted.
- NAFA administered Marketing Fund; funds require Taco Bell approval for advertising programs.
- Taco Bell’s field marketing manager Susan Viti participated as an Association director/voted in the promotion.
- Promotional campaign included a text message blast to about 17,000 Chicago-area residents in Oct. 2005; funds and approvals documented in emails and invoices.
- Court grants Taco Bell’s amended motion for summary judgment, finding no control by Taco Bell over the text message campaign.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taco Bell can be vicariously liable under TCPA § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). | Thomas argues agency/control through an association and its agents. | Thomas must show Taco Bell controlled the manner and means; evidence shows Association/ESW/Ipsh controlled. | Yes, vicarious liability requires control; court finds no control by Taco Bell. |
| Whether traditional vicarious liability standards apply to TCPA claims. | TCPA should impose broader liability for actions done on its behalf. | Apply traditional agency/alter ego rules unless Congress expressed otherwise. | Court adopts traditional agency standards; no broader liability shown. |
| Whether Marketing Fund Policy creates actionable control over the campaign. | Policy shows unfettered control by Taco Bell over local campaigns. | Policy requires approval for NAFA-funded campaigns but does not prove day-to-day control. | Policy does not establish control over the manner/means of the campaign. |
| Whether votes and approvals by Taco Bell representatives establish agency. | Viti’s director vote and Taco Bell’s vote show control. | Votes were minority/approval, not control; not enough for agency. | Not sufficient to establish agency. |
| Whether email communications show Taco Bell direction of the text message. | Emails indicate approval/direction by Taco Bell. | Emails involve internal approvals among Association/agents; no direct Taco Bell directive. | Not credible evidence of Taco Bell directing the text message. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003) (incorporates traditional vicarious liability rules in tort actions)
- United States v. Bonds, 608 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2010) (applies agency doctrine to vicarious liability contexts)
- Japan Petroleum Co. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 456 F. Supp. 831 (D. Del. 1978) (agency/alter ego considerations in liability determinations)
- Transamerica Leasing Inv. v. La Republica de Venezuela, 200 F.3d 843 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (agency/ownership considerations in liability determinations)
- Aleksick v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 205 Cal.App.4th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (franchise control not equivalent to agency for liability)
- Calvert v. Huckins, 875 F. Supp. 674 (E.D. Cal. 1995) (alter ego/agency considerations in liability)