Ohio district court follows precedent from U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Barr v. AAPC on the constitutionality of the TCPA.
10/29/2020 11:00
A second court in a matter of weeks has declared the Telephone Consumer Protection Act unconstitutional for calls made before July 6, 2020.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio-Eastern Division issued a ruling Oct. 29 following suit with the Louisiana district court decision in Creasy v. Charter Communications Inc. (Sept. 28, 2020) and Barr v. AAPC before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the Ohio case, Lindenbaum v. Realgy Inc., the plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit against the defendant alleging violations of the TCPA.
According to the complaint, the defendant placed a prerecorded call to the plaintiff’s cellphone. After the filing of this lawsuit, the defendant placed a second prerecorded call, this time to the plaintiff’s landline. The plaintiff never provided express written consent to receive these calls, according to the complaint, therefore allegedly violating the TCPA.
ACA International recently reported on Creasy v. Charter Communications Inc. and the precedent from the Barr v. AAPC decision. In the Creasy v. Charter Communications Inc. case, the viability of the consumer’s claims relied on the meaning of the court’s decision in Barr.
Barr considered the validity of a 2015 amendment to the TCPA whereby Congress created an exception to the general call restriction, thereby permitting robocalls used to collect debts owed to the federal government, ACA previously reported. On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court (a) struck down the government debt exception as an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech, and (b) severed the offending provision, leaving the rest of the statute intact.
The defendant in Lindenbaum v. Realgy Inc. moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint states, “[The] defendant now moves to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that this court lacks jurisdiction to preside over cases involving laws that are ‘unconstitutional and void.’ [The] plaintiff opposes the motion.”
However, the court granted Realgy LLC’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and denied the plaintiff’s request for oral argument.
ACA is analyzing this case to provide more details for members, who in the meantime can read more on the similar ruling in Creasy v. Charter Communications Inc. here.