William L. O'Brien v. New Hampshire Democratic Party & a.
166 N.H. 138
| N.H. | 2014Background
- O’Brien sued NH Democratic Party and Buckley for alleged Robocall Statute violations (RSA 664:14-a).
- The prerecorded message stated the plaintiff would join the Democratic ticket and described policy positions.
- Plaintiff sought damages and alleged disclosures were missing; he did not allege he was injured by the violation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding lack of standing under the statute.
- Court affirmed, ruling plaintiff lacked standing for private damages under RSA 664:14-a, IV(b).
- Court invited legislature to clarify standing for subjects of prerecorded political messages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs have standing to sue under RSA 664:14-a for private damages? | O’Brien has standing as the subject of a robocall. | Statute protects voters’ privacy, not the subject; no injury shown. | No standing; injury and causation required. |
| Does RSA 664:14-a's text support standing for a candidate who is the message subject? | Plain text grants standing to any person injured, including candidates. | Statutory framework requires injury and causation; different remedies exist for penalties. | Plain text does not confer standing without injury and causation. |
| Should the court determine standing given legislative intent and related statutes? | Legislature intended broad standing including subjects of messages. | Legislative history supports narrow standing; protect recipients’ privacy. | Legislature should clarify standing; code refrains from broad adjudication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Libertarian Party of N.H. v. Sec’y of State, 158 N.H. 194 (2008) (standing and injury requirements; judicial power limits)
- In re Campaign for Ratepayers’ Rights, 162 N.H. 245 (2011) (statutory standing framework; interpretation of statute overall)
- Deyeso v. Cavadi, 165 N.H. 76 (2013) (statutory interpretation; questions of law reviewed de novo)
- State v. Hynes, 159 N.H. 187 (2009) (standing under Consumer Protection Act; injury and causation)
- Appeal of Richards, 134 N.H. 148 (1991) (standing; required direct injury)
- Chase Home for Children v. N.H. Div. for Children, Youth & Families, 162 N.H. 720 (2011) (statutory interpretation; give meaning to every word)