BUBBLE POPPING NOISES AND SILENCE: Plaintiff Wins $11,000 By Default In TCPA Lawsuit

Plaintiff Anton A. Ewing won a Motion for Default Judgement for a TCPA and CLRA (California Consumer Legal Remedies Act) complaint filed on May 19, 2022. In a one-month period, he allegedly received 11 calls and text from CSOLAR (a solar panel installation broker based in Southern California). CSOLAR only markets to those in Southern California so being a San Diego resident put Ewing on the company’s radar. Ewing was on the National DNC Registry at the time when he received the alleged calls and claims to have made a clear indication that he did not want to be called when he was transferred to an operator.

Ewing claimed these were most certainly robocalls/ATDS due to the distinct bubble popping noises and long silent pause prior to the artificial-voice prerecorded message. Also, the generic text messages Ewing also received from CSOLAR allegedly also gave proof to ATDS usage.

On top of all that, one CSOLAR’s employees gave Ewing a statement that they use autodialer software and admitted the company uses an auto dialing computer to make calls and texts to California resident for purposes of getting them to buy their solar programs.

Plaintiff also states there was no safe harbor here for CSOLAR to have claimed a prior existing relationship or consent. This may be why CSOLAR opted to not respond or defend against this whatsoever.

The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Ewing regarding the TCPA and CLRA allegations. He was awarded $11,000 in damages but only as to the TCPA claim. The CLRA claim was lacking because the complaint says 11 calls and texts were sent to the plaintiff, but the CLRA does not encompass texts. Thus, the Court ruled that Ewing did not provide evidence of the amount of damages for the CLRA allegations, and therefore, he did not prove he was entitled to any damages on that claim.

Ewing also claimed damages under the CIPA (California Invasion of Privacy Act) in this complaint. The CIPA claim failed due to the lack of allegations that the calls were actually recorded—the entire basis for the statute.


1 Comment

Leave a Reply