District Court (Cal.) Says TCPA Plaintiff has Art. III Standing under Spokeo

In Mbazomo v. Etourandtravel, Inc., 2016 WL 7165693 (E.D. Cal. 2016), Judge Bastian found Art. III standing in a TCPA case.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s alleged harm is sufficiently concrete to survive the motion to dismiss. The history of sustaining claims against both unwelcome intrusion into a plaintiff’s seclusion and unceasing debt-collector harassment are squarely “harm[s] that [have] traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit.” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549-50. By passing the TCPA, Congress exercised its judgment in elevating the receipt of unwelcome telemarketing calls to the status of a cognizable injury. Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, the weight of authority holds that allegations of nuisance and invasions of privacy in TCPA actions are concrete. See, e.g., Hewlett, 2016 WL 4466536, at *2; Cour v. Life360, Inc., Civ. No. 16-805 TEH, 2016 WL 4039279, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2016); Booth v. Appstack, Inc., Civ. No. C13-1533 JLR, 2016 WL 3030256, at *5 (W.D. Wash. May 24, 2016); Meyer v. Bebe Stores, Inc., Civ. No. 14-267 YGR, 2015 WL 431148, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2015).