Quick one for you this AM TCPAWorld.
One of the toughest things to discern in this crazy world of ours is what constitutes a revocation and what doesn’t.
Yes, we know that–in the absence of a contractual consent provisions–consent can be revoked by any reasonable means.
And we also know that a revocation request must “clearly express” a desire for calls to stop. Got it.
But stating the rules and applying them in real life are two different things.
That’s why cases like Stewart v. Network Capital Funding Corp., CV 21-368-MWF (MAAx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139601 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2021) are so helpful.
There it was held that when a consumer says “not interested” in a product that is NOT revocation of consent:
Plaintiff’s statement that he did not have a house, at best, expressed disinterest in NCFC’s services; it fell short of “clearly express[ing]” his desire not to receive additional calls from NCFC.
Considering that the caller was calling to offer the Plaintiff a free quote on a mortgage, responding “I don’t have a house” is…a pretty definitive expression of a lack of interest.
Nonetheless it was not a clear instruction for calls to stop–maybe Plaintiff enjoyed receiving occasional offers for a mortgage quote. Heck, he might be in the market to buy his first home, after all.
Bottom line–just because a consumer says they’re not interested in a product or service does NOT mean that an effective revocation has taken place. Then again, you might not want to keep blowing up that person’s cell phone–bad for the brand. (And other courts might disagree.)