Allstate Contends TCPA Plaintiff Consented to Calls He Received
Alex Riemenapp’s Sept. 29 claims of Telephone Consumer Protection Act wrongdoing against Allstate (see 2310020004) are barred in whole or in part because Riemenapp, someone acting on his behalf or another authorized party consented to receive the alleged phone calls…
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.
within the meaning of the TCPA, said Allstate’s answer Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00670) in U.S. District Court for Western Wisconsin in Madison. Riemenapp’s complaint estimates Allstate placed no fewer than 30 solicitation calls to his cellphone number after he listed the number on the national do not call registry. But the plaintiff’s claims and those of the putative class members are barred because, as applied to this case, the TCPA is “unconstitutionally vague" and its application to Allstate would violate the due process provisions of the Fifth and 14th amendments, said Allstate’s answer. The statutory-damages provisions of the TCPA also violate the safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and 14th amendments, in addition to violating the due process clause, because they constitute excessive fines and are “grossly disproportionate to any actual harm that may be suffered” by the plaintiff or the putative class members, it said. Because Riemenapp and the class members have suffered no injury, they also don’t have standing to assert a TCPA claim against Allstate, it said.