Windshield Repair Firm Hounded Plaintiff Despite His ‘Explicit’ Opt-Out Requests
NuVision Auto Glass, a windshield replacement and repair company, promotes its services by engaging in "aggressive" sales calls and text messages to consumers with no regard for their rights under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, even after customers ask NuVision…
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.
to stop texting them, alleged plaintiff Justin Therrien’s class action Wednesday (docket 2:24-cv-00934) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. NuVision began sending Therrien multiple text messages in November, urging him to book a windshield inspection appointment, said the complaint. The Marciopa County, Arizona, responded to one of the messages Nov. 10 with an expletive, demanding that the company stop contacting him, it said. Despite Therrien’s “unequivocal opt-out request,” NuVision continued to “bombard” him with more unwanted telemarketing text messages, it said. The plaintiff ultimately sent NuVision four opt-out requests, yet the company ignored them, it said. Therrien’s experience strongly suggests that the defendant uses multiple phone numbers to send marketing text messages to consumers, and fails to ensure that opt-out requests are honored, it said. At no point in time did Therrien give NuVision his express written consent to be contacted, said the complaint. To the extent that the company believed it ever had any consent to contact Therrien for marketing purposes, “that extent was expressly revoked” starting Nov. 10 when he responded to a NuVision text message with his opt-out expletive, it said. Even though the plaintiff used “explicit language” in some of his opt-out requests, his requests “clearly expressed his desire to not receive further tests,” it said. The defendant’s conduct is further illegal because Therrien listed his cellphone number on the national do not call registry in 2015, and it has been listed there “at all times relevant to this action,” it said.