Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

NJ Business Hit With $22 Million Judgment for Sending Unsolicited Facsimiles

Author: Dan Brecher

Date: April 13, 2015

Key Contacts

Back

A New Jersey roofing company is on the hook for more than $22 million dollars in damages for sending unsolicited facsimiles.

The 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 Legal Background

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 Facts of the Case

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’s Decision

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.

The Message for New Jersey Businesses

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.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
What Business Owners Get Wrong Before Meeting a Litigation Attorney post image

What Business Owners Get Wrong Before Meeting a Litigation Attorney

What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]

Author: Michael Mietlicki

Link to post with title - "What Business Owners Get Wrong Before Meeting a Litigation Attorney"
Arbitration vs. Litigation vs. Mediation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Know Before Signing a Contract post image

Arbitration vs. Litigation vs. Mediation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Know Before Signing a Contract

Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]

Author: Graham Staton

Link to post with title - "Arbitration vs. Litigation vs. Mediation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Know Before Signing a Contract"
Can You Own Part of a New Jersey Business Without a Written Agreement? post image

Can You Own Part of a New Jersey Business Without a Written Agreement?

Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]

Author: Michael Mietlicki

Link to post with title - "Can You Own Part of a New Jersey Business Without a Written Agreement?"
Crisis-Proofing Your New Jersey Business: Building a Crisis Response Plan Before You Need One post image

Crisis-Proofing Your New Jersey Business: Building a Crisis Response Plan Before You Need One

For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "Crisis-Proofing Your New Jersey Business: Building a Crisis Response Plan Before You Need One"
Monmouth County's Next Development Wave: What Developers and Investors Need to Know post image

Monmouth County's Next Development Wave: What Developers and Investors Need to Know

Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]

Author: Donald M. Pepe

Link to post with title - "Monmouth County's Next Development Wave: What Developers and Investors Need to Know"
Are Your Conversations with AI Shielded from Discovery? Courts Are Split post image

Are Your Conversations with AI Shielded from Discovery? Courts Are Split

Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]

Author: Chris Seelinger

Link to post with title - "Are Your Conversations with AI Shielded from Discovery? Courts Are Split"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

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!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. By providing a telephone number and submitting this form you are consenting to be contacted by SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.
“If you would like to submit a file, please email it directly to info@sh-law.com.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!