Suit Seeks to Halt Real Estate Agents From Cold-Calling Consumers Without Consent
Steven Kern’s class action seeks to reverse “a disturbing trend” whereby real estate agents cold-call consumers without consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said Kern’s complaint Tuesday (docket 2:24-cv-04207) in U.S. District Court for Central California 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.
Los Angeles. Kern alleges that Sasha Rahban, a Los Angeles real estate agent, places calls to consumers using a prerecorded voice message without the consumers’ prior written consent to receive such calls, said his class action. As a result, Los Angeles resident Kern seeks injunctive and monetary relief “for all persons injured by Rahban’s telemarketing calls,” it said. As explained in the FCC’s February 2012 order, the TCPA requires prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded solicitation calls to wireless numbers and residential phone lines, said the complaint. Yet in violation of that rule, Rahban “fails to obtain any express written consent” before placing his prerecorded voice calls to cellphone numbers such as Kern’s, it said. The plaintiff received one such unsolicited call to his cellphone April 26 from Rahban or on Rahban’s behalf, said the complaint. Kern didn’t answer the call, but a prerecorded voicemail was left inquiring whether he was in the market to sell his home, it said. Kern never consented to receiving solicitation calls from the defendant, nor was he looking to sell his home, it said. The unauthorized voicemail that Rahban or someone on his behalf left with Kern harmed the plaintiff “in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of his phone,” it said.