Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, U.S., No. 14-857.
On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that an individual plaintiff in a class suit may continue with his individual claims after he has rejected a defendant’s offer of complete relief made before a class is certified.
Prior to the decision, the issue had become more and more prevalent with the proliferation of TCPA litigation. As a result of the differing opinions of Circuit Courts, SCOTUS granted certiorari in a case that involves U.S. Navy recruitment text messages that allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Campbell-Ewald offered Gomez $1,503 per violation, plus reasonable costs, but the plaintiff allowed the offer to lapse. The company moved to dismiss the case as moot. A trial court judge said the unaccepted offer alone was insufficient to moot Gomez’s claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that the case remained a live controversy, and Campbell-Ewald filed the writ of certiorari.
In its petition, Campbell-Ewald told the Court that the TCPA has “become an extortionist weapon in the hands of class action attorneys seeking to extract lucrative attorneys’ fees for class-wide settlements” and that “[i]n 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.”
Marketers and TCPA defendants had hoped for a different ruling – that a complete settlement offer or offer of judgment moots either individual and/or class claims. Consequently, it is imperative for marketers that utilize automated dialing systems to consult with an experienced TCPA compliance lawyer in an effort to remain on the right side of applicable telemarketing regulations.
Information conveyed in this article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute, nor should it be relied upon, as legal advice. No person should act or rely on any information in this article without seeking the advice of an attorney.
