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

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.



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….

Leave a Reply