In Frickco Inc. v. Novi BRS Enterprises, Inc., 2011 WL 2079704 (E.D.Mich. 2011), Judge Zatkoff denied class certification in a TCPA-fax case, explaining:
In considering Plaintiff’s motion, the Court does not agree that common issues predominate over the individual ones under Rule 23(b) (3). While Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of 3,787 individuals who received facsimile transmissions on October 18, 2006, liability exists under the TCPA only if the transmissions were unsolicited, considering prior communications and business relationships, and each unsolicited transmission constitutes a separate violation of the TCPA. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 227(a) and (b). Thus, the claims of each class member are inherently individualized, inasmuch as an investigation would have to be conducted regarding the factual circumstances of each person who received a facsimile transmission from Defendants in order to determine liability. See Forman v. Data Transfer, Inc., 164 F.R .D. 400, 404 (E.D.Pa. 1995) (“The transmissions to each plaintiff would necessarily occur in different places, at different times and under differing circumstances. Given the individual proof necessary to establish liability, the commonality requirement cannot be met.”). The factual core of the case is not whether Defendants sent facsimile transmissions, but rather, whether each of the individual class members solicited the facsimiles. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action is based on “a single course of conduct which is identical for each of the plaintiffs.” Sterling, 855 F.2d at 1197. While the Sixth Circuit has held that individualized issues related to damages should not preclude class certification, see id., the individual issues here are directly related to Defendants’ liability. Accordingly, the Court finds that the individual issues presented in this case predominate over the common issues. ¶ Although Plaintiff notes several courts that have granted motions for class certification under facts similar to those in this case, see Targin Sign Systems, Inc. v. Preferred Chiropractic Ctr., Ltd., 679 F.Supp.2d 894 (N.D.Ill. 2010) and Hinman v. M and M Rental Ctr., Inc., 545 F.Supp.2d 802 (N.D.Ill. 2008), other courts have held that such actions are not appropriate for class certification given the individualized nature of the alleged violations. See Levitt v. Fax.com, No. WMN–05–949, 2007 WL 3169078, at *3 (D.MD. May 25, 2007) (“It is this need to make a determination for each class member as to whether the facsimile transmission was unsolicited, both by the lack of express permission and by the absence of a prior business relationship, that makes class treatment of this action inappropriate and unmanageable.”); Forman, 164 F.R.D. at 404 (“A class action would be inconsistent with the specific and personal remedy provided by Congress to address the minor nuisance of unsolicited facsimile advertisements.”); Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 962 F.Supp. 1162 (S.D.Ind. 1997). The Sixth Circuit has not weighed in on the availability of class certification in TCPA claims under the circumstances of this case, and Plaintiff has not presented any precedential authority that conflicts with the Court’s decision. Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.