In Jamison v. Esurance Services, Inc., 2016 WL 320646, at *3 (N.D.Tex., 2016), Judge Boyle denied a TCPA Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The Report does not specifically list injuries that result from telephone advertising. But parallels to the facsimile advertising injuries can be inferred. For example, cellular telephone users generally incur charges or reduction in usable minutes when they receive calls. This appears to shift some advertising cost from the caller to the call recipient. Also, the Report discusses the possibility that, in some instances, “automatic dialing systems can ‘seize’ a recipient’s telephone line and not release it until the prerecorded message is played, even when the called party hangs up.” Id. This appears to occupy the recipient’s telephone the same way facsimile advertising occupies a recipient’s fax machine. From this, the Court concludes that an individual suffers an injury in fact from unauthorized telephone contact when it causes an incurrence of charges, a reduction in usable minutes, or occupation of the telephone line, making it unavailable for other use. At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from TCPA violations suffice to establish an injury in fact. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. Here, Jamison alleged that when Esurance violated the TCPA, it caused her to incur cellular telephone charges or to reduce her previously-paid-for cellular telephone time, and that it invaded her privacy. Doc. 7, Pl.’s First Am. Compl. ¶ 49. At this stage, this pleading is sufficient to establish an injury in fact. Therefore, Jamison has standing to bring suit.