Ind. Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over TCPA Claims: McAfee’s Answer
McAfee denies all the allegations in plaintiff Victoria Roehrman’s Nov. 30 class action that McAfee’s “widespread practice” of sending “misleading and unsolicited” marketing text messages to consumers violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Indiana’s Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, said…
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.
McAfee’s answer Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-02146) in U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis (see 2312010013). McAfee contends that the Southern District of Indiana lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Roehrman’s action because the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants in 2020 that the TCPA’s automated call restriction was unconstitutional, said its answer. The constitutionality of the statute’s content discrimination element “will remain unresolved until the district court enters final judgment in that case,” it said. The TCPA and its enabling regulations “are also unconstitutional for several other reasons,” including under the First Amendment and the Constitution’s due process clause, it said. Roehrman and her putative class members lack standing to bring the claims alleged in her complaint because any harm allegedly caused by the texts at issue, which McAfee denies, isn’t “fairly traceable” to any violation allegedly committed by McAfee, and because Roehrman may not have suffered any Article III harm, it said.