Author Topic: 6th Circuit expresses willingness to overturn FCC's "express consent" ruling.  (Read 92 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

rebuilder2006

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 414
In Hill v. Homeward Residential, Inc., No. 2:13–CV–00388, 2015 WL 4978464 (6th Cir. August 21, 2015), the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has expressed a willingness to overturn the FCC's declaratory ruling defining "express consent" under the TCPA.

Other Circuits have expressed the same willingness.

They just need some good plaintiff's bar attorneys to bring the case!

CLAY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I join the majority opinion in full. I write separately
only to highlight the limited scope of the primary question presented in today’s case. Plaintiff
Stephen Hill challenges the district court’s interpretation of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regulations concerning the circumstances under which a debtor gives a
creditor “prior express consent” to call his cellphone. Hill does not challenge the FCC’s
interpretation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) as promulgated in paragraphs 9 and 10 of In the
Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
,
23 F.C.C. Rcd. 559 (2008).

I agree with the majority that “a debtor does not need to give his consent to automated
calls specifically” because the FCC regulations say as much. Majority Op. at 8. However, I
express serious doubt as to whether the FCC correctly interpreted the statute when it
promulgated its regulations. The notion that a debtor gives his prior express consent to receiving
calls from a creditor using an auto-dialer or prerecorded voice simply by giving his cellphone
number to the creditor strikes me as contrary to both the plain language of the statute and the
underlying legislative intent. See id. at 2 (quoting Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct.
740, 744 (2012)). But because the plaintiff in this case does not challenge the FCC regulation
itself, we do not have occasion to pass judgment on it. I concur in the majority opinion on the
understanding that such a challenge is not foreclosed in a future case.

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 9125
Hill does not challenge the FCC’s
interpretation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) as promulgated in paragraphs 9 and 10 of In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,



Kind of says it all, doesn't it? he expected to win? How?
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

rebuilder2006

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 414
The post was to bring notice to the fact that if Hill had challenged the FCC regulation regarding "prior express consent" itself - he would have won.

And if someone in the future (hopefully near) does challenge the FCC's regulation (hopefully with a very good consumer/TCPA law firm) - the FCC's interpretation of "prior express consent" will be overturned.


CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8728

The post was to bring notice to the fact that if Hill had challenged the FCC regulation regarding "prior express consent" itself - he would have won.


You are letting your enthusiasm get ahead of what was actually written.

The correct statement is that he would have gotten the vote of ONE judge, not the whole banc.


rebuilder2006

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 414
No...

The Court in Hill specifically states that it is determining the case while relying solely on the FCC's Ruling of what constitutes "prior express consent" - several times.

Had Hill challenged the FCC's Ruling, as the Concurrence states, the Court would have not determined the case solely upon the FCC's Ruling - but upon the "the plain language of the statute and the
underlying legislative intent". [quoting the Concurrence]

There are several other Circuits, most notably the 11th, that have stated the exact same thing when deciding TCPA cases.

If a formal challenge is brought before a Court of Appeals regarding the FCC's interpretation of "prior express consent" - the FCC's interpretation goes down.

There just needs to be a formal challenge brought by a good consumer/TCPA law firm in order to make it happen.

The other Circuits have stated as much in their Opinions.


 

credit