As I mentioned a bit ago, we have a HUGE webinar coming up tomorrow and I am excited for it. (Apparently 400 people are signed up for a Friday showing.. and that’s pretty cool.)
Ahead of that wanted to post on a new ATDS text case out yesterday that is a bit of an oddball.
The Court found, in part, that the presence of a “STOP” notification in a text messages is at least indicative of ATDS usage. The argument seems to be that because the texter offered a “STOP” functionality it is more likely the message was sent without consent. I’m not sure I completely agree–CTIA best practices more or less require a stop option to be disclosed to a consumer in most any marketing message (or, at least at the outset of an interactive AI exchange with the consumer)–but its something for folks to keep in mind.
The case is Poonja,, Case No. 20-cv-4388, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186809 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2021) and involved generic messages offering warehouse positions to potential job seekers. TCPAWorld regulars know that such messages receive no special exemption under the TCPA–at least according to the Ninth Circuit--and job-related messages still require express consent (be sure to check out my old “Employers Guide to TCPA in the Workplace” for more info.)
And sending out blast texts without consent may yet trip the TCPA post Facebook. That’s why blast texts are yellow yellow yellow (but human selection and AI/triggered texts are green green green.)
One last note, the Poojna Court also found that Creasy is dead because… yeah, it is.