The law does not concern itself with trifles.
A lovely adage. If only it were true.
In Loop Spine v. American College of Medical Quality, 2024 WL 4542298 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2024) a Plaintiff sued over receipt of a fax. In addition to a claim under the TCPA the Plaintiff asserted a conversion claim. The defendant, per the lawsuit, had converted a single piece of paper.
A single piece of paper.
Occupied, as it were, without permission.
A trespass of the narrowest sort.
The Defendant moved to dismiss arguing that the law does not concern itself with such trifles– private actors must deal with the loss of sheets of paper and the like without resort to the cumbersome machinery of government. After all, the argument goes, the cost of recovery related to that single sheet of paper is far higher in terms of occupation of tax dollars than the loss was in terms of occupation of a private good.
This doctrine–known as the “de minimus” doctrine in the law–is alive and well in many settings and in many jurisdictions.
But NOT in cases involving the TCPA.
The Court in Loop Spine had little trouble concluding both the TCPA and the conversion claim could proceed, tiny damages or not.
That continues to be the rule across the country in a TCPA case. Any damage to an individual– no matter how tiny–will afford Article III standing.
Indeed, in many instances courts have found the mere violation of the TCPA itself affords standing–which is absolutely and categorically wrong following Spokeo. But, that doesn’t stop courts from doing it.
Why? Why do courts constantly bend the rule for TCPA claims?
Because they perceive the TCPA (correctly) as the federal government’s crown jewel response to the robocall epidemic and perceive their role (incorrectly) as expanding the reach of the statute wherever they can to further that goal.
And so whereas the TCPA is the most abused and most over litigated statute leading to the most obnoxiously extortionist bad faith conduct by Plaintiffs and their lawyers in the entire history of law… yet, these lawsuits receive favorable treatment day in, day out.
Which is why “regular lawyers” always get killed when they step foot into defending TCPA lawsuits. Walk into a buzz saw. No idea what hit them.
The TCPA creates its own gravity. Its own physics. Its own weather.
This is the TCPAWorld. We all float down here.
Just a reminder, the Evocalize recently recognized as “The Best TCPA Firm in the Nation” will be raising its rates come January 1, 2025. Best to sign up now to lock in rates and be protected when everything changes next year!
FAIR WARNING!!– Troutman Amin, LLP Rates Are Set to SPIKE Next Year (So Get In Now!)
Chat soon.
Discover more from TCPAWorld
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“And so whereas the TCPA is the most abused and most over litigated statute leading to the most obnoxiously extortionist bad faith conduct by Plaintiffs and their lawyers in the entire history of law… yet, these lawsuits receive favorable treatment day in, day out.”
Last time I checked there were 50,000,000,000+ robocalls per year and less than 2,000 TCPA lawsuits filed. How about you get that ratio under 1 lawsuit for every 1,000,000 illegal calls before you start with your most abused and over litigated statute by extortionist bad faith plantiffs nonsense.
Not to pile on, but to add some perspective to the big picture, let’s bear in mind as of the last published figures (Nov 2023) there are currently 249,498,621 of us victimized consumers registered on the NDNC!
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Do-Not-Call-Data-Book-2023.pdf
Of course, doing ‘all’ we can by registering, to avoid the onslaught of robo-crap on a daily basis, is woefully inadequate thanks to the latest ploy of the violators: which is NOT to scrub prior to calling – as the law requires – but to do so AFTER the call is answered, but before the transfer takes place!!
Why is that you ask? Well, I’m happy to answer that Eric. Three reasons initially come to mind…
1) Because it’s way more cost effective to scrub AFTER the call is answered than to remove all 249+M numbers prior to calling. The pre-call required scrubbing would substantially reduce the number left to even call…
2) Since to cut the call prior to transfer it’s virtually impossible for everyday Joe to even learn who the responsible parties involved (to maybe file suit). The effect of which maintains the number of calls we are slammed by…
3) Just how many folks even know about their rights under the TCPA, let alone file suit? Statistically very, very, very few – especially since the large majority of those 2,000 suits (thanks Steve!!) are settled relatively quickly, prior to any certification. Thus virtually NEVER paying out anywhere near the statutory maximum prescribed by the TCPA. So it’s just a cost of doing biz for said violators…