Federal Court Finds Fla. Mini-TCPA Constitutional

dismiss by the defendant, which argued that FTSA violated the First Amendment as a content-based speech restriction and defied the 14th Amendment’s due process clause because the law fails to define what is an “automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers.” Judge Melissa Damian disagreed. The state law isn’t subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment because it regulates only commercial speech, said the judge, citing May’s decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court on a Florida social media law (see 2205230049). FTSA survives intermediate scrutiny because the commercial speech at issue isn’t misleading or related to unlawful activity, and because the law is narrowly tailored and serves a substantial government interest of protecting consumer privacy, Damian said. The court isn’t persuaded that FTSA is unconstitutionally vague, the judge said. “The Court finds that the absence of a definition of ‘automated system’ in Section 8(a) of the FTSA does not render that provision unconstitutionally vague when, as here, Defendant’s alleged conduct is clearly encompassed by the statute.” SmileDirectClub should answer the complaint by Sept. 30, Damian said. A tsunami of telemarketing lawsuits is expected as more states like Florida add restrictions beyond what’s in the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (see 2206100049).