BILLY HOWARD JOINS THE FRAY: Consumer Protection Firm’s First FTSA Filing May Signal Widening Appeal to State Suits

1 Comment

We’ve been monitoring the Florida Mini-TCPA filings since the statute passed back in July, 2021 and there have been TONS of them.

Not withstanding the volume, there have been a relatively limited number of plaintiffs’ firms bringing these cases. And some of the biggest name in the sport have stayed on the sidelines, which was a little surprising.

Well it appears that there is widening interest in the pursuit of these cases with Billy Howard (an honorable mention on this year’s power rankings) filing his firm’s first FTSA case last Friday.

In the suit, brought by a consumer who apparently received a call on a Florida phone number–but curiously does not allege his state of residence– Billy’s firm alleges that the Defendant made to calls him to sell solar without his consent.

He seeks to represent the following class:

All persons in Florida who: (1) were called by Defendant for goods and/or services, (2) without his or her prior, express written consent, (3) using the same automated system, (4) after July 1, 2021.

Notice how Billy’s class is suggestive–whereas a proper definition looks to the use of the “same” system across a class, Billy’s definition assumes–argumentatively, needlessly and in failsafe fashion–that the system was “automated” in nature.

Interesting, no?

This is also one of the few VOICE channel calls we’ve seen animate an FTSA claim. Most of the filings to date have been text message cases.

The full complaint is here: Calta

Billy Howard is one of the most aggressive litigators out there. If he plans to move wholesale into FTSA cases, it could signal a whole new level of fight is about to hit the courtrooms of the Sunshine state.

We’ll keep an eye on this one and continue to monitor the filings that keep pouring in.

 

Categories:

Published by Eric J. Troutman

The Czar of TCPAWorld Eric Troutman is one of the country’s prominent class action defense lawyers and is nationally recognized in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation and compliance. He has served as lead defense counsel in more than 70 national TCPA class actions and has litigated nearly a thousand individual TCPA cases in his role as national strategic litigation counsel for major banks and finance companies. He also helps industry participants build TCPA-compliant processes, policies, and systems. Eric has built a national litigation practice based upon deep experience, rigorous analysis and extraordinary responsiveness. Eric and his team feel equally at home litigating multibillion dollar telecommunications class actions in federal court as they do developing and executing national litigation strategies for institutions facing an onslaught of individual TCPA matters. They thrive in each of these roles – delivering consistently excellent results – while never losing sight of the client experience. While many firms now tout TCPA expertise, Eric has been there from the beginning. He built one of the country’s first TCPA-only defense teams and began serving as national TCPA counsel for his clients nearly a decade ago. This perspective allows him to swiftly develop the right litigation strategies for dealing with recurring problems, without wasting time on tactics that are bound to fail. Eric’s rich historical perspective and encyclopedic knowledge of the TCPA landscape also make him an invaluable resource to institutional compliance teams struggling to comply with the shifting regulatory landscape. No task is too small – or too big. Indeed, Eric and his team have helped build TCPA-compliant systems and processes for some of the largest and most complex corporate entities in the country. He commonly works with in-house compliance counsel to build and implement enterprise and business-line specific TCPA solutions, performs TCPA audits and drafts and reviews proposed TCPA policies and procedures. He and his team also have the technical expertise necessary to assist call centers seeking to develop TCPA-resistant call path architecture or to modify existing telephony and software integration to better insulate from potential TCPA exposure. Eric has built a reputation for thought leadership. An avid blogger and speaker, he has been at the forefront of the industry’s effort to push for clarity and a return to sanity for the TCPA for years. He was selected to advocate for the financial services industry on important TCPA issues before the Federal Communications Commission and co-authored the nation’s only comprehensive practice guide on TCPA defense. In his spare time, Eric leads defense teams representing banks and other financial services companies in consumer finance litigation matters. He has experience representing clients in UCC, TILA, RESPA FCRA, CCRA, CLRA, FDCPA, RFDCPA and FCCPA claims, as well as in fraud and bank operations issues.

1 Comment

  1. Also curious is the wording used “Plaintiff’s 813 area is a Florida area code and he received the text messages while residing in and physically present in Florida.” My layman’s perspective says its trying to avoid saying plaintiff actually is a Florida resident; why does it say “…and physically present in Florida.”?

    Doesn’t the law still apply to ALL of Florida’s actual residents regardless of their physical location at the time of call? I mean if the marketer called a Florida area code to sell his product; isn’t it logical to believe that he intends to be calling a Florida resident?

    Also noteworthy (to me anyway) is the Class description “All persons in Florida who:…” shouldn’t it say all Florida residents who:…”?? Or does the law cover any body from anywhere that just happened to be in Florida when they received the call? Hmmm….

    Reply

Leave a Reply