Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Telephone Consumer Protection Act

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Barr v. American Ass’n of Political Consultants, Inc. (2020)

The portion of 47 U.S.C. 227(b) added in 2015 to exempt calls to collect debts owed to or guaranteed by the federal government from the TCPA's ban on robocalls to cellphones is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.  The exception is content-based as it draws distinctions based on the message conveyed in the telephone call.  The exception may be invalidated… Read More

True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.

by Jan T. Chilton |

In a junk fax case brought under the TCPA, the recipient's "prior express invitation or permission," like consent in an unsolicited telephone call case, is an affirmative defense with respect to which the court, when weighing class certification, considers only the defenses the defendant has actually advanced and for which it has presented evidence. Read More

Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co.

Any Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim necessarily involves an invasion of privacy, so such a claim fell within the invasion of privacy exclusion to the insured's directors & officers insurance policy.   Read More

Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC

Plaintiff had standing to sue under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, but not the UCL for unwanted text messages soliciting him to renew a gym membership, but the claims were properly dismissed because plaintiff expressly consented to receive the messages by giving his phone number to the gym, and merely allowing his gym membership to lapse did not revoke that… Read More

Chen v. Allstate Insurance Co.

An unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment for individual injunctive relief and the full amount of statutory damages for the named plaintiff does not moot out a putative class action even when backed by a deposit in court of the statutory damages.  Read More