Any TCPA Violations Were Result of ‘Bona Fide Error,’ Says Telemarketing Vendor
Plaintiff Jean Zoulek lacks standing to bring her Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against telemarketing vendor A Marketing Resource because she didn’t suffer an injury-in-fact due to any conduct by AMR, said the vendor’s answer Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-01464) in…
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.
U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin in Milwaukee. The statutory penalties Zoulek seeks for herself and her purported class members are “excessive,” in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth and 14th amendments, it said. AMR “acted in good faith, and has established procedures, to avoid any violations of the law,” so any TCPA violations “were the result of a bona fide error,” it said. Zoulek alleges Gannett outsourced the calls to AMR, which violated the TCPA when it called numbers on the national do not call registry and didn’t stop when consumers asked it to (see 2212080002). Gannett was terminated as AMR’s co-defendant in March.