In Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, the appellate court reversed the district court’s order and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant in plaintiff’s TCPA suit, finding that plaintiff provided consent to receive autodialed calls on his cell phone when  his wife provided the cell number to the hospital during intake.  After admission, plaintiff received radiological treatment from a hospital sub-contractor, and plaintiff’s cell phone number was given to the radiologist from the hospital.  The district court had concluded that the provision of the cell phone number by the plaintiff’s wife to the hospital was not effective consent under the TCPA because the FCC orders that concluded simply providing a number to a creditor is “prior express consent” was incorrect, and because the number was not actually given to the creditor (the radiologist), but the hospital.  The reversal by the appellate court respects the generally accepted principal that effective consent under the TCPA is given when the number is provided by a consumer to the creditor.

 

In Richardson v. Koch Law Firm, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by obtaining a judgment on a debt that was scheduled in an active bankruptcy case and in violation of the automatic stay.  The district court entered summary judgment in defendant’s favor, and plaintiff appealed.  The appellate court affirmed, finding that the debtor had no standing to assert the claim and any right to recovery belongs to the bankruptcy trustee.

 

In Brenner v. American Education Services, the district court granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s TCPA claims in defendant’s favor, finding that the autodialed calls were made with plaintiff’s prior express consent.  After plaintiff appealed, the appellate court reversed, finding that there was a disputed factual issue of whether plaintiff had revoked the consent, implicitly recognizing that there is a right held by consumers to revoke previously given consent.

Back to News & Resources