True Health Chiropractic Inc v. McKesson Corporation, 4:13-cv-02219

Background

Plaintiffs (True Health; later McLaughlin joined) allege McKesson sent unsolicited advertising faxes in violation of the TCPA; Plaintiffs seek an Exhibit A-only class (recipients listed on McKesson’s Exhibit A but not Exhibits B or C).
During discovery McKesson identified three consent-defense groups (Exhibits A, B, C); Exhibit A claimed consent via product registration and EULAs.
Ninth Circuit remanded: held Exhibit A-only subclass satisfied predominance, Exhibit C did not, and directed the district court to address Exhibit B issues on remand. True Health sought renewed certification limited to Exhibit A and McLaughlin as class rep.
The district court permitted narrow summary judgment briefing on whether providing a fax number via Medisoft product registration or agreeing to the Medisoft EULA constituted prior express invitation or permission for faxed advertisements.
The court denied McKesson’s summary judgment: neither registration-entry of a fax number nor assent to the EULA established prior express invitation/permission to receive advertising faxes as a matter of law.
The court granted Plaintiffs’ renewed motion certifying the Exhibit A-only class, appointed McLaughlin as class representative, and appointed class counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entering a fax number on Medisoft product registration constitutes "prior express invitation or permission" for advertising faxes	Registration did not mention ads; at most it permits transactional follow-up, not advertising	Entry of fax number in registration is voluntary and under Van Patten constitutes consent for related communications, including upgrade/compatibility ads	Court: No — registration entry did not reasonably communicate consent to receive advertising faxes; summary judgment denied for defendants
Whether agreeing to the Medisoft EULA constitutes "prior express invitation or permission" for advertising faxes	EULA only permits collection/transmission of usage information to McKesson; it does not notify users they will receive faxed ads	EULA’s language that usage info may assist McKesson in offering features/services implies consent to marketing outreach, including faxes	Court: No — EULA language did not clearly and unmistakably authorize sending fax advertisements; summary judgment denied for defendants
Standing and scope: whether McLaughlin can represent class claims for faxes sent before it intervened	McLaughlin has individual standing for faxes it received; its claims relate back to the original complaint under Rule 15 and Ninth Circuit precedent	Defendants argued intervention timing and China Agritech foreclose McLaughlin from representing older claims	Court: McLaughlin’s claims relate back to original complaint; China Agritech does not bar intervention-based representation here; standing challenge rejected
Class certification: whether Exhibit A-only class satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority given possible individual consent defenses	Class satisfies numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy; Ninth Circuit already held Exhibit A-only subclass meets predominance	Defendants asserted new evidence of individualized consent and that limiting defenses to Exhibits A/EULA would violate their rights	Held: Law-of-the-case and Ninth Circuit mandate that Exhibit A-only subclass meets predominance; class certified; superiority satisfied

Key Cases Cited

Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC, 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir.) (consent depends on transactional context; voluntary provision of number may permit related communications)
True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 896 F.3d 923 (9th Cir.) (on appeal: Exhibit A-only subclass satisfies predominance; remanded to address Exhibit B)
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (limits on merits inquiry at class-certification stage)
A-S Medication Sols. LLC v. Physicians Healthsource, Inc., 324 F. Supp. 3d 973 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (entering fax number into CRM did not show consent to receive faxed advertisements)
China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018) (American Pipe tolling does not permit successive class claims)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (predominance focuses on whether common, classwide proof can resolve central issues)