I’m not going to be belabor the point–I have done so plenty of times previously–but TCPA defendants simply cannot extract themselves from litigation at the pleadings stage by pointing out that the Plaintiff is a professional TCPA litigant.
Filing numerous cases–taken alone–is not enough to deprive a Plaintiff of standing, as yet another court has found. Horton v. Multiplan, Inc., Case No. 3:21-CV-1542-S-BK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237328 (N.D. Tex. November 24, 2021).
Where a Defendant can prove the litigant manufactured the lawsuit, however–such as by inviting calls or otherwise taking steps to assure receipt of calls–there is a different rule. Specifically–thanks to the Czar’s big win in Stoops–such plaintiffs lack standing to sue.
That said, TCPA defendants should stop wasting their time with “professional plaintiff” arguments at the pleadings stage. You need to develop the evidence that the plaintiff invited, manufactured or affirmatively desired the calls in order to prevail. And that is never pleaded on the face of the complaint.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo v. Robins that plaintiffs must allege a concrete and particularized injury to meet Article III standing requirements,
If a TCPA plaintiff is a professional, then his main source of income is derived from these TCPA lawsuits. Without these lawsuits, this TCPA litigator would have to find another job or another source of income. Therefore, the plaintiff is getting an economic benefit from these calls. not harm. Without these calls, he would be unemployed and without revenue.
How is this even legal? How can Abramson claim economic injury? Abramson wants you to call him.