Troy Williams v. Capital One Bank (USA) N.A.
682 F. App'x 467
7th Cir.2017Background
- Troy Williams applied for a Capital One credit card by phone in July 2004 and orally provided his cell-phone number as his contact number.
- Capital One approved the application, issued a card, and Williams later defaulted on the account.
- Beginning in August 2009, Capital One (and a collection firm it retained) called Williams’s cell phone using an autodialer repeatedly over about a year; Williams did not ask the callers to stop.
- Capital One obtained a state-court default judgment on the underlying debt.
- Williams sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227), claiming the autodialed calls to his cell phone lacked his consent.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Capital One; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding Williams had given prior express consent by providing his number during the credit application and never revoking it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether calls to a wireless number using an autodialer violated the TCPA absent a written signature | Williams: oral provision of number is not enough; consent requires a written signature | Capital One: giving cell number during credit application constitutes prior express consent; oral consent suffices for non-telemarketing calls | Held: Oral consent is sufficient; providing the cell number with the credit application evidences prior express consent, so no TCPA violation |
| Whether FCC rulings on consent may be ignored | Williams: FCC rules shouldn't control without written consent | Capital One: FCC precedent permits oral consent for non-telemarketing debt-collection calls | Held: Court presumes FCC rulings valid and applies them; party must challenge FCC orders via Hobbs Act, not in district court |
| Relevance of validity of underlying debt to TCPA claim | Williams: challenges debt validity (implying calls were improper) | Capital One: debt validity separate from TCPA consent issue | Held: Debt validity irrelevant to the consent question under the TCPA |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Williams: factual dispute over consent (no written signature) | Capital One: undisputed record shows oral consent and no revocation | Held: Summary judgment for Capital One affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Allin v. City of Springfield, 845 F.3d 858 (7th Cir.) (summary-judgment evidence must be construed in favor of nonmovant)
- CE Design, Ltd. v. Prism Bus. Media, Inc., 606 F.3d 443 (7th Cir.) (courts must presume validity of FCC orders and Hobbs Act channeling of review)
- Hill v. Homeward Residential, Inc., 799 F.3d 544 (6th Cir.) (giving a cell number in connection with a loan/credit application can evidence consent)
- Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 768 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir.) (same—providing wireless number for credit/debt can constitute consent)
- GTE S., Inc. v. Morrison, 199 F.3d 733 (4th Cir.) (parties may not bypass Hobbs Act review by litigating administrative rules in district court)