District Court (Pa.) Exempts Autodialed Calls to Residential Land-Lines for Debt Collection Purposes from the TCPA

In Linko v. American Educ. Services, 2012 WL 1439052 (M.D.Pa. 2012), Judge Jones found auto-dialed calls to residential landlines for purpose of debt collection exempt from the TCPA.  Judge Jones explained:  

Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants violated the TCPA by contacting Plaintiffs on their residential telephone using prerecorded automated telephone messages without first obtaining prior express consent to do so. A review of the relevant case law and the regulations and rulings of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) clearly reveals that this claim fails as a matter of law.  ¶   The TCPA was enacted with the privacy-protective purpose of dealing with “com-mon-nuisance telemarketing.” ErieNet, Inc. v. Veloc-ity Net, Inc., 156 F.3d 513, 514 (3d Cir.1998). Section 227 of the TCPA provides that it shall be unlawful for any person “to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B).” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1) (B).   ¶    Section 227(b)(2) permits the FCC to issue orders and regulations exempting certain communications from the prohibitions of Section 227(b)(1)(B). See id. § 227(b)(2)(B). As the Defendants aptly observe, calls made to a party with whom the caller had an established business relationship are exempt from the TCPA’s prohibitions against automated and prerecorded messages. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2)(iv). Further, the FCC has ruled that debt collection circumstances necessarily “involve a prior or existing business relationship.” 7 FCC Rcd. 8752, 8771–72 (Oct. 16, 1992)). It further concluded that such calls “are exempt from the TCPA’s prohibitions against prerecorded message calls because they are commercial calls which do not convey an unsolicited advertisement and do not adversely affect residential sub-scriber rights.” Id.   ¶   Plaintiffs admit that the Defendants were engaged in “collection activity” and contacting them “for the purpose of collection” in their Complaint. (Doc. 1–1, ¶¶ 18–19). Thus, the Defendants’ contact with the Plaintiffs falls squarely within the ambit of the TCPA’s long-established exemption for debt collec-tion services. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ TCPA claim fails as a matter of law and is dismissed with prejudice.