Gannett Seeks Dismissal of Complaint Alleging It's 'Vicariously Liable'
Plaintiff Jean Zoulek failed to plead facts that could allow the court to “plausibly infer” Gannett’s A Marketing Resource (AMR) company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said a memorandum Monday (docket 2:22-cv-01464) in support of Gannett's motion to dismiss.…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The complaint doesn't allege Gannett placed any calls to Zoulek, but it asserts the company should be held “vicariously liable” for AMR’s alleged calls, said the memorandum in U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin in Milwaukee. AMR can't plead a basis to show vicarious liability because it was “simply acting as a contractor under an arm’s-length agreement, and not as Gannett’s agent,” said the memo. Zoulek was a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel subscriber until June, when she canceled her subscription. She then began receiving calls from AMR, despite being on the national do not call registry, alleged her complaint, saying AMR made calls to her after she made an internal do-not-call request. The memorandum cited a master services agreement between Gannett and AMR, asserting AMR is an independent contractor, “free from the direction or control of its publisher." Gannett provides a list of names, addresses and phone numbers of prior residential subscribers but “does not mandate” or control how AMR is permitted to contact identified individuals, it said.