9th Cir. Holds "Called Party" is Current Subscriber, Rejects "Intended Recipient" Approach

Editor's note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved. 

--

Another day, another tough ruling for a TCPA defendant.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered a ruling today aligning with the Seventh and Eleventh Circuit on the issue of the identity of the “called party” for purposes of express consent in the TCPA. The Court held that the caller must have the consent of the subscriber to the phone line called and may not rely on the consent of the intended recipient of the call.

[article_ad]

This is a real set back for callers hoping to make steady use of the express consent defense–it places the risk of wrong number calling on the caller, even where a consumer provides a wrong number or where a number changes hands without the caller’s knowledge.

The ruling does not address whether a caller can rely on the consent of a prior subscriber to a phone line where the number changes hands.

Court also rejects challenge to Marks.

Ruling can be found here: NL v Credit One

--

Want to track TCPA trends?
The iA Case Law Tracker helps you do that in less time than it takes to pour your morning cup of coffee.