Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Melito v. Experian Mktg. Solutions, Inc.

Melito v. Experian Mktg. Solutions, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

November 5, 2018, Argued; April 30, 2019, Decided

Docket Nos. 17-3277-cv (L), 17-3279-cv (Con)

Opinion

 [*88]  Hall, [**3]  Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs each received unsolicited spam text messages sent from or on behalf of American Eagle Outfitters ("AEO"). They then filed a putative class-action lawsuit against AEO, claiming that these text messages were sent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227. Plaintiffs alleged no injury other than the receipt of the unwanted texts.

Plaintiffs and AEO agreed to settle the class action and moved in district court for approval of the settlement and certification of the settlement class. Third-party defendant Experian Marketing Solutions, Inc. ("Experian") objected to certification, arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016). Class member Kara Bowes objected to the class settlement as unfair. The district court (Caproni, J.) approved the settlement and certified the settlement class, and Experian and Bowes appeal.

The principal question we are tasked with deciding is whether Plaintiffs' receipt of the unsolicited text messages, sans any other injury, is sufficient to demonstrate injury-in-fact. We hold that it is. First, the nuisance and privacy invasion attendant on spam texts are the very harms with which Congress was concerned when enacting [**4]  the TCPA. Second, history confirms that causes of action to remedy such injuries were traditionally regarded as providing bases for lawsuits in English or American courts. Plaintiffs were therefore not required to demonstrate any additional harm. Having concluded that Plaintiffs have satisfied Article III's standing requirement, we dismiss Experian's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to Bowes's appeal.

"In the interest of reducing the volume of unwanted telemarketing calls, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, in relevant part, makes it 'unlawful . . . to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system [("ATDS")] . . . to any telephone number assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service, . . . unless such call is made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.'" King v. Time Warner Cable Inc., 894 F.3d 473, 474 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)). In enacting the Act, Congress found that "[u]nrestricted telemarketing . . . can be an intrusive invasion of privacy" and that "[b]anning such automated or prerecorded telephone calls to the home, except [**5]  when the receiving party consents to receiving the call[,] . . . is the only effective means of protecting telephone consumers from this nuisance and privacy invasion." Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, §§ 5, 12, 105 Stat. 2394 (1991).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

923 F.3d 85 *; 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12945 **; 103 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 950; 2019 WL 1906087

CHRISTINA MELITO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RYAN METZGER, ALISON PIERCE, GENE ELLIS, WALTER WOOD, CHRISTOPHER LEGG, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees, AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AEO MANAGEMENT CO, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Defendants-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EXPERIAN MARKETING SOLUTIONS, INC., Consolidated Defendant-Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant, KARA BOWES, Objector-Appellant, EBAY ENTERPRISE, INC., FKA EBAY ENTERPRISE MARKETING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant.

Subsequent History: US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Bowes v. Melito, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 7585 (U.S., Dec. 16, 2019)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. No. 14-cv-2440 - Valerie E. Caproni, Judge.

Plaintiffs each received unsolicited spam text messages sent from or on behalf of American Eagle Outfitters ("AEO"). They then filed a putative class-action lawsuit against AEO, claiming that these text messages were sent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227. Plaintiffs alleged no injury other than the receipt of the unwanted texts.

Plaintiffs and AEO agreed to settle the class action and moved in district court for approval of the settlement and certification of the settlement class. Third-party defendant Experian Marketing Solutions, Inc. ("Experian") objected to certification, arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016). Class member Kara Bowes objected to the class settlement as unfair. The district court (Caproni, J.) approved the settlement and certified the settlement class, and Experian and Bowes appeal.

The principal question we are tasked with deciding is whether Plaintiffs' receipt of the unsolicited text messages, sans any other injury, is sufficient to demonstrate injury-in-fact. We hold that it is. First, the nuisance [**2]  and privacy invasion attendant on spam texts are the very harms with which Congress was concerned when enacting the TCPA. Second, history confirms that causes of action to remedy such injuries were traditionally regarded as providing bases for lawsuits in English or American courts. Plaintiffs were therefore not required to demonstrate any additional harm. Having concluded that Plaintiffs have satisfied Article III's standing requirement, we dismiss Experian's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to Bowes's appeal.

Melito v. Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147645 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2017)

Disposition: AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

CORE TERMS

settlement, district court, text message, third-party, lack standing, notice, nonsettling, telephone, class settlement, concrete, invasion, privacy, class member, allegations, purports, lawsuit, harms, spam, statutory violation, certification, approving, nuisance, rights

Civil Procedure, Special Proceedings, Class Actions, Compromise & Settlement, Appeals, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Settlements, Settlement Agreements, Appellate Jurisdiction, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Preliminary Considerations, Justiciability, Standing, Standing, Injury in Fact, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Elements, Governments, Legislation, Statutory Remedies & Rights, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, Telemarketing, Business & Corporate Compliance, Communications Law, Federal Acts, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Abuse of Discretion, Releases From Liability, General Releases