Ringless Voicemails: The Court Takes Aim
Florida district court rules in case defining ringless voicemails as calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
4/9/2019 8:00 AM
By Adam Steele
Associate, Mac Murray and Shuster LLP
Is a call a “call” if you never received a call? The Southern District of Florida has weighed in on this legal riddle and concluded that ringless voicemails are “calls” under the TCPA and subject to its regulations. The case, Schaevitz v. Braman Hyundai, Inc., involved a car dealership that transmitted unsolicited pre-recorded voicemail messages to individual’s cellphones advertising trade-in options at the dealership. The messages were delivered using a ringless voicemail platform which deposits the messages directly into the individual’s voicemail box. There’s no ring and no call to answer, but a new voicemail arrives just the same.
So, how could ringless voicemail qualify as a “call?” In its analysis, the court determined that, although ringless voicemails are sent via the internet, they are still a “call” subject to the TCPA for two primary reasons. First, the general dictionary definition of a “call” is to communicate with another person with a telephone. Although the sender of ringless voicemails is not using a phone, the communication is achieved because of the recipient’s phone. Second, the TCPA was enacted for the purpose of protecting consumers from invasive practices of unsolicited telemarketing. Ringless voicemails accompanied by pre-recorded messages are no less intrusive than standard voicemail or text messages, which have been held to constitute “calls” under the TCPA.
What does this mean?
The Southern District’s analysis and conclusion is closely tied to the same reasoning that was used by courts in the past to determine text messages and standard voicemails fit into the definition of a “call” subject to the TCPA. It’s also the same reasoning used by the Western District of Michigan to reach the same conclusion about ringless voicemail in 2018. As technologies continue to advance and change, courts will likely continue to follow this “history and purpose” analysis in determining whether new forms of communication are subject to the TCPA. The question presented by ringless voicemail hasn’t uniformly been decided yet, but so far the trend is leaning toward defining them as “calls” subjecting the senders to TCPA liability.
Editor’s note: This content is published with permission from Mac Murray and Shuster LLP. This article is provided for informational purposes and is not intended nor should it be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author in [his][her] individual capacity and do not reflect the official policy or position of their partners, entities or clients they represent.
ACA International members may also read more about the case on the Industry Advancement Program website and subscribe to ACA Daily for regular court decison updates impacting the industry provided by our litigation advocacy and compliance teams. Members must be logged in to the website to access the Industry Advancement Program page.
Follow ACA International on Twitter @ACAIntl and @acacollector, Facebook and request to join our LinkedIn group for news and event updates. ACA International members are welcome to submit news items for possible publication to email@example.com. Visit our publications page for news submission guidelines and subscriptions to ACA Daily, Collector magazine and Pulse. Advertising is available for companies wishing to promote their products or services. Be sure to visit the ACA Events Calendar on the Education and Training website to view our listing of upcoming CORE Curriculum and Hot Topic seminars featuring critical educational opportunities for your company.