
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: April 13, 2015

Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comThe class-action suit alleged that the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending more than 4,000 fax advertisements via a marketing company.
The TCPA is a federal statute that prohibits the use of “any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement․” The statute contains three key exceptions: (1) if a prior business relationship exists between the parties; (2) if the recipient voluntarily makes its fax number available for “public distribution”; or, (3) if the advertisement contains a notice informing the recipient of the ability and means to avoid future unsolicited advertisements. Running afoul of the TCPA can be costly because the statute authorizes statutory damages of $500-$1,500 per violation, regardless of the actual damages suffered by the recipient.
The class-action suit alleged that Defendants David/Randall Associates, Inc. (Randall) transmitted unlawful facsimile advertisements 44,832 times to 29,113 different fax numbers, through a third-party entity Business to Business Solutions (B2B). The fax at issue in City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. David Randall Associates, Inc. stated “ROOF LEAKS??? REPAIRS AVAILABLE,” and directed recipients in “Eastern PA, NJ, and Mid-State DE” to call David/Randall for “the repair and maintenance of most major roofing systems.” The fax stated that the advertisement had been sent to the recipient because some “person” at the recipient’s business “supplied the fax number and permission to send faxes.” It also purported to “a toll free ‘Remove’ number” for recipients to be removed from the distribution list.
Following the first fax blast, which targeted 12,000 recipients, Randall received numerous complaints, many of which stated that the remove hotline seemed ineffective and/or unavailable, and suggested that the advertisements violated applicable law. Randall directed B2B to remove the complaining recipients from any future distribution lists. Despite continued complaints, Randall authorized three additional campaigns. Ultimately, one of the aggrieved recipients, City Select Auto Sales, Inc., filed suit. It was eventually certified as a class action.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and imposed a $22,405,000 fine. In reaching its decision, the court found that 1) the defendant utilized a “telephone facsimile machine” to send “one or more faxes;” (2) that the transmissions constituted “‘advertisements;’” and (3) that the defendant sent the transmissions without the recipient’s consent, absent application of one of the statutory exceptions.
The court rejected Randall’s argument that the company had an established business relationship with the recipient and/or obtained the fax number through their website. As noted by the court, “Publishing a fax number on a website does not, by itself, constitute consent to receive unsolicited fax advertisements under the [TCPA].”
The court further found that the advertisements failed to contain a statutorily-compliant opt-out notice because they “contain no statement that the law obligates the sender to comply with any removal requests within a reasonable time, nor do the advertisements provide a toll-free domestic facsimile number for purposes of submitting such requests.” As noted by the court, the faxes provided only a domestic contact telephone number, but no alternative fax number, and did not clearly and conspicuously advise the recipient of its legal right not to receive such unsolicited faces.
As discussed in a prior post, TCPA violations are attractive to plaintiffs’ class-action lawyers because the law authorizes significant statutory damages. Accordingly, New Jersey businesses should avoid sending out advertisements via fax unless you have a pre-existing business relationship with the recipients. In addition, it is also wise to review any new advertising campaign with experienced counsel and investigate any potential marketing firm that may act on your behalf.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!