TCPAWorld is a fun place.
Here we are, less than two weeks away from the close of comments on the FCC’s NPRM to close the lead generation loophole and we have a case of a lead generator allegedly causing a bunch of trouble and a lead buyer, apparently, protecting them.
In Kelly Haskell v. Realgy Energy Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-2134 (N.D. Oh. April 25, 2023) the Defendant was sued for allegedly illegal robocalls made by a third-party vendor.
In discovery the Plaintiff asked for the name of the vendor and the Defendant refused to provide it.
Never a good idea–and really an odd decision, why protect the party that allegedly violated the TCPA?
In any event, the Plaintiff moved to compel a response and the Court granted it:
I hereby order Realgy to provide Haskell with the identity of the party who transferred Haskell’s call to Realgy “as an inbound call,” as well as any related information, within fourteen days…
Not sure what “any related information” means, but Realgy probably just should have provided the answer in the first place.
We’ll keep an eye on this.