TCPA Class Action Cites 11th Circuit Drazen Decision to Establish Article III Standing
Legacy Insurance Solutions placed multiple telemarketing robocalls to plaintiff Jack Hinesley to promote its timeshare divestment services, though his residential cellphone number was listed on the national do not call registry since August 2003, alleged Hinesley’s class action Tuesday (docket…
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.
4:23-cv-00525) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Tallahassee. Legacy’s unsolicited calls caused Hinesley “actual harm,” in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, said his complaint. The Mary Esther, Florida, resident estimates that he spent “numerous hours investigating the unwanted phone calls,” including finding out Legacy's identity and how it got his phone number without his knowledge or consent, it said. The “cumulative effect” of unsolicited phone calls and voicemails like Legacy’s “poses a real risk of ultimately rendering the phone unusable for other purposes as a result of the phone’s memory being taken up,” it said. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' en banc decision July 24 in Drazen v. Godaddy.com (docket 21-10199) found that plaintiffs have a concrete injury under Article III “with as little as one call or text from a defendant,” it said. The complaint alleges willful and negligent violations of the TCPA and FTSA and seeks injunctive relief and an award of actual and statutory damages.