Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Unsolicited Faxes

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance 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.

District Court (Mich.) Says TCPA Blast-Fax Plaintiff’s Discovery Not Limited By Single Fax Attached to Complaint

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Central Alarm Signal, Inc. v. Business Financial Services, Inc. 2016 WL 3595627, at *2 (E.D.Mich., 2016), Judge Whalen allowed a TCPA class action plaintiff to conduct discovery of faxes beyond the scope of what was attached to the complaint or defined by the class. That Plaintiff attached only a single fax to the FAC does not circumscribe the class allegations… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says TCPA Blast-Fax Allegations Were Sufficient to Reach Defendant’s CEO

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Mora v. Zeta Interactive Corp., 2016 WL 3477222, at *2-3 (E.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Drozd denied a motion to dismiss filed by a TCPA blast-fax's CEO who was named in a TCPA case against his company. In the instant case, defendants argue that the allegations specifically leveled against defendant Steinberg lack details of his direct participation in any wrongdoing and… Read More

District Court (Ill.) Certifies TCPA Blast-Fax Case; Questions Regarding Consent Insufficient to Defeat Class Cert.

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Dr. Robert L. Meinders D.C., Ltd v. Emery Wilson Corporation, 2016 WL 3402621, at *4-5 (S.D.Ill., 2016), Judge Yandle certified a TCPA blast fax class action.  Sterling is a corporation that provides management training and consulting services to entrepreneur and business clients (Doc. 69-8, p. 18). To promote its business, Sterling sends faxes to existing and potential customers promoting… Read More

6th Cir. Expands Vicarious Liability in TCPA Blast-Fax Case

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Siding and Insulation Co. v. Alco Vending, Inc., 2016 WL 2620507, at *4-5 (C.A.6 (Ohio),2016), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the FCC's 2006 amended definition of "sender" did not apply retroactively to faxes sent in 2005.  More importantly, however, the Court of Appeals found that common law agency principles did not govern the concept… Read More

8th Cir. Reverses District Court’s Denial of Class Cert. in TCPA Class Action; Says Class Clearly Was Ascertainable

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medtox Scientific, Inc., 2016 WL 1743037, at *3-4 (8th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a TCPA blast-fax class action could proceed as a class act, reversing the district court's denial of class certification on ascertainability grounds. Sandusky's class definition includes: “All persons who (1) on or after four… Read More

7th Cir. Affirms Rejection of Imposition of Vicarious Liability on Principal in Blast-Fax Case; Trial Testimony Was that Scope of Agency Was Limited, and Liability Could Not Be Imposed Beyond Such Scope

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Bridgeview Health Care Center, Ltd. v. Clark, 2016 WL 1085233, at *2-3 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's rejection of agency liability under the TCPA, where the authority to the agent was limited. In determining what theory should govern Clark's liability, the trial court correctly rejected strict liability by recognizing that… Read More

District Court (Ill.) Says Web Service was a Common Carrier Exempt from TCPA; Says Text Messages at Issue Were Not “Advertisements”

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Payton v. Kale Realty, LLC,  2016 WL 703869 (N.D. Ill. 2016), Judge Lefkow held that a web service was exempt from the TCPA. Regardless of plaintiffs' self-defeating argument, the undisputed facts establish that VoiceShot provides telecommunication services rather than information services. While plaintiff is correct that VoiceShot's services include data storage to allow users to store contact lists and past… Read More

District Court (Mo.) Limits TCPA Blast-Fax Discovery to Faxes at Issue, Not to All Faxes Possibly Sent During 4-year Period

by Scott J. Hyman |

In St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc., 2015 WL 9451046, at *2 (E.D.Mo., 2015), Judge White refused to strike a TCPA blast-fax class action definition as being overlord, but then limited the Plaintiff's discovery solely to the faxes sent -- not to all faxes possibly sent during the 4-year SofL period. Plaintiff served a subpoena on Windstream Communications, LLC (“Windstream”)… Read More

District Court (Ill.) Says Defendant’s Blast-Fax Not an “Advertisement” under TCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Grind Lap Services, Inc. v. UBM, LLC, 2015 WL 6955484, at *3 (N.D.Ill., 2015), Judge Gettlemen granted summary judgment to a TCPA Blast-Fax defendant, holding that the fax was not an advertisement. According to an order issued by the Commission, “messages whose purpose is to facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter… Read More

District Court (Ill.) Dismisses TCPA Fax Case; Plaintiff Must Allege More than Merely that the Defendant’s Products Were Advertised in the Fax

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Urban Elevator Service, Inc. v. Stryker Lubricant Distributors, Inc., 2015 WL 6736676, at *1-2 (N.D.Ill., 2015), Judge Shah found granted a Motion to Dismiss a TCPA blast-fax class action against one defendant who claimed that it was not responsible for the sending of the fax at issue. In response, plaintiff argues that—by pleading “Defendants” sent the fax—it did allege Sinopec USA… Read More

District Court (Mo.) Allows TCPA Fax Class Action Past the Pleadings Stage; Says Offer of Judgment Did Not Moot Class Action When Pre-emptive Class Cert. Motion Already on File; Court Waffles on “Fail-Safe” Class, but Says Pleadings Stage is Not the Proper Time

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Connector Castings, Inc. v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc., 2015 WL 6431704, at *2-3 (E.D.Mo., 2015), Judge Limbaugh allowed a TCPA class action past the pleadings stage.  He rejected the Defendant's argument that a Rule 68 offer mooted the class. Plaintiff contends that the offer of judgment was invalid insomuch as plaintiff had on file a motion to… Read More

District Court (Minn.) Stays TCPA-Fax Case Following Declined Rule 68 Offer Pending Outcome of SCOTUS’ Decision in Campbell–Ewald

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Yaakov v. Varitronics, LLC, 2015 WL 5092501, at *1 (D.Minn.,2015), Judge Montgomery stayed a TCPA-fax class action pending the outcome of the SCOTUS' decision in Campbell-Ewald.  The facts were as follows. This putative class action stems from eight unsolicited fax advertisements Bais Yaakov received between November 2013 and February 2014. See Compl. [Docket No. 1] ¶ 10; Ex. A (the “Fax… Read More

6th Cir. Finds Art. III Standing for TCPA Class Plaintiff; Finds Defendant Directly, rather than Vicariously, Liable for Unsolicited Faxes

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Imhoff Investment, L.L.C. v. Alfoccino, Inc., 2015 WL 4079438,(6th Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found Article III standing for a TCPA class plaintiff, and imposed direct, rather than vicarious, liability on a company on whose behalf an unsolicited fax was sent.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals summarized its holding as follows: Plaintiff Avio, Inc. alleges… Read More

1 2