High Court To Hear Campbell-Ewald TCPA Appeal of 9th Circuit Ruling
The Supreme Court granted Campbell-Ewald's cert petition seeking review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit involving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), said the court's May 18 order list. The case is Campbell-Ewald…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Co. v. Jose Gomez, docket 14-857. The case involves a class action brought under the TCPA against Campbell-Ewald, a national marketing firm, over a text message that Campbell-Ewald sent on behalf of the U.S. Navy to recruit sailors, according to the Campbell-Ewald cert petition. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 per violation for unauthorized messages, the petition said. "But the Act has become an extortionist weapon in the hands of class action attorneys seeking to extract lucrative attorneys’ fees for class-wide settlements. In response, many defendants, including Campbell-Ewald here, have offered plaintiffs complete relief on their individual claims at the outset -- before any class is certified -- agreeing to make plaintiffs whole for any TCPA violations, while sparing all the costs of protracted litigation. In its decision, the Ninth Circuit held that an offer of complete relief fails to moot either the plaintiff’s individual claim or his class claim," said the petition, which said the 9th Circuit ruling contravenes basic Article III principles and conflicts with the decisions of other circuits. The petition presented the following questions: "1. Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claim. 2. Whether the answer to the first question is any different when the plaintiff has asserted a class claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but receives an offer of complete relief before any class is certified. 3. Whether the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity recognized in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940), for government contractors is restricted to claims arising out of property damage caused by public works projects." Campbell-Ewald didn't immediately comment.