TCPAQUICK HITTER: RingCentral Must Respond to Perrong’s Subpoena Seeking Client Information

1 Comment

Repeat TCPA litigator Andrew Perrong apparently received several recent phone calls from somebody identifying only as “Connor.”

Through some sleuthing he was able to determine the calls came from RingCentral. So we asked a court to allow some expeditated discovery against RC. Specifically to provide: “the name, address, contact telephone number, website, and e-mail address of the subscriber that made the automated calls.”

The court performed a pretty good analysis here, noting there was a chance that the number displaying on Perrong’s screen might not have been the actual number used by the caller–i.e. that it was spoofed–so requiring RC to research the number on the subpoena might actually be a dead end:

Plaintiff recorded the Defendant’s purported telephone number on his caller ID. Compl. ¶ 28. However, a caller ID display may not show the caller’s true telephone number. For instance, fraudulent actors often use a technique known as “call spoofing” to deliberately falsify the information transmitted to a recipient’s caller ID display. As a result, call spoofing may cause a caller ID display to show an entirely unrelated person’s telephone number. Therefore, Plaintiff’s interests must be balanced against the interests of the unknown telephone customer.

In the end, however, the Court permitted the subpoena to issue. See Perrong v. Connor, 2023 WL 113957 (D. N.J. Jan. 4, 2023.)

Not a whole lot to take away from this one, but subpoenaed parties should keep in mind that burden defenses and scope objections remains potent in this setting–especially where spoofing might mean all the work performed responding to a subpoena is a waste of time or worse–an invasion of a potentially-innocent customer’s privacy.

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. Clinton Strange v. Nomen Nescio No. 9:20-cv-80947-DMM (S.D. Fl.)
    Google Spammer calls Plaintiff on his cellphone broadcasting Google impersonation pre-recorded voice messages in Nov. 2019.
    Plaintiff was harmed. Plaintiff brings suit against who? – Certainly not Google, LLC
    Plaintiff knows that judges like Latin phrases, so plaintiff researched the Latin phrase for “I do not know”… “the name” Nomen Nescio.
    Plaintiff brought suit and discovered a VoIP Provider – who in turn identified another VoIP lessor and then Ring Central was identified as the Carrier that was allocated the number.
    Got a subpoena for Ring Central and Ring Central replied:
    Ring Central has no responsive end-user information regarding the DID No. 318-319-2188 between the dates you specified 2019/11/04 to 2019/11/08.

    Industry Trace Back Group (ITG) was not even a developed ting (back-then). Plaintiff had no-way to move forward. Case Stalled.

    Judge dismisses Plaintiff’s Action

    Plaintiff is out (at that time $400), plus costs of postage and printing.

    Defendant’s wonder why Consumers are mad… that is sum-of-the-why. The sum of all the parts are going to equal the whole though!

    Rant ends,

    Do Better and Ring Central probably does not deserve to win.

    Clinton

    Reply

Leave a Reply