![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
May 26, 2021, Filed
[*688] Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge:
] Robocalls and robotexts are nuisances. Congress banned them in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"). But as every American knows, there are companies—like the defendant in this case—who refuse to get that message while collectively sending millions of others. The question presented is whether one of the defendant's victims has an Article III injury sufficient to support standing for a claim under the TCPA. He does.
The TCPA prohibits four telemarketing practices. First, it prohibits using an "automatic telephone dialing system [("ATDS")] or an artificial or prerecorded voice" to call:
(i) an emergency telephone line;
(ii) a guest room or patient room of a hospital or other healthcare facility; or
(iii) any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone [**2] service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call, unless such call is made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.
47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). ] Second, the Act proscribes using "an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message" to "any residential telephone line" without prior consent. Id. § 227(b)(1)(B). Third, the Act prohibits sending certain unsolicited advertisements to fax machines. Id. § 227(b)(1)(C). Fourth and finally, the Act prohibits using an ATDS to tie up more than one business line simultaneously. Id. § 227(b)(1)(D).
] To enforce these provisions, the TCPA creates a private right of action. The act authorizes "[a] person" to bring "an action based on a violation of [the Act] or the regulations prescribed [thereunder]" to "enjoin such violation," to "recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, to "receive $500 in damages for each such violation," or to seek both damages and injunctive relief. Id. § 227(b)(3).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
998 F.3d 686 *; 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 15795 **
LUCAS CRANOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus 5 STAR NUTRITION, L.L.C., Defendant—Appellee.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. USDC No. 1:19-CV-908.
Cranor v. 5 Star Nutrition, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230025, 2019 WL 8331601 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 27, 2019)
nuisance, text message, public nuisance, cellular telephone, common law, telemarketing, unsolicited, advertisement, chattels, trespass, invasion of privacy, prohibits, telephone, privacy, rights, harms, close relationship, injury in fact, telephone line, prerecorded, intangible, quotation, enacting, damages
Business & Corporate Compliance, Communications Law, Federal Acts, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, Telemarketing, Internet Business, Online Advertising, Spam Email, Civil Procedure, Justiciability, Standing, Injury in Fact, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Elements, Governments, Federal Government, US Congress, Real Property Law, Torts, Nuisance, Communications Law, Regulated Entities, Telephone Services, Cellular Services, Telemarketing & Consumer Fraud & Abuse Prevention Act, Types of Nuisances, Public Nuisances, Remedies, Summary Abatement, Trespass to Real Property, Torts, Premises & Property Liability, Trespass to Real Property, Courts, Common Law