“NO”, “EXIT”, AND “I DO NOT WISH TO BE CONTACTED”: TCPA Class Action SMS Lawsuits from “Keyword Avoiders” Pour In

5 Comments

You know how the Czar is always right?

Here’s another example.

A few weeks back I told you a new wave of TCPA class actions was coming involving litigators who opt out of SMS messages without using keywords such as STOP or QUIT:

ITS HERE: The First of a Wave of New “Keyword Avoider” SMS Opt Out TCPA Class Actions Has Been Filed And TCPAWorld Will Never Be the Same

Well that wave is already crashing with at least half a dozen new suits contending some very curious “opt outs” qualify as TCPA revocations.

Check these new class actions out:

Rose v. 307 SW 2nd St
S.D. FL; 0:25-cv-61339
texts after “I do not wish to be contacted”

Dudek v. Surf Clean Energy
E.D. NY; 2:25-cv-03621
texts after “S” (responded solely with uppercase letter “S”)

Gomez v. Gage Bowl
C.D. CA; 2:25-cv-05257
texts after “exit”

Torre v. American First Finance
E.D. CA; 2:25-cv-01447
texts after ‘cease and desist’

Gabai v. Tabs Labs
C.D. CA; 2:25-cv-04630
texts after ‘remove’ and ‘no’

Mokled v. Hanna Cars
S.D. FL; 0:25-cv-60899
texts after ‘no’

And notice this is definitely being done on purpose. Check out the Gomez evader at work:

He said “Exit” three different times. No effort to switch to “stop” or “unsubscribe.”

Or how about Miss. “I do not wish to be contacted”:

You can’t tell me that’s not a set up.

In one suit a guy just texted “S” and claimed it was a valid opt out. Then again the stop notifier seems to have invited that:

Weird right?

Bottom line– the keyword avoider opt out TCPA litigation wave is real and upon us. Again, after the FCC’s revocation rule in April went into effect these lawsuits are very much an issue because a consumer can revoke via any reasonable means and are not limited to any specific keyword in an SMS revocation effort.

Anyway be sure to tune in TOMORROW at 11 am pacific for a FREE webinar where we break down these cases and other tactics used by litigators to target businesses large and small with shakedown TCPA class action lawsuits.

ABUSIVE LAWSUITS ANALYZED: Troutman Amin, LLP Set to Take a Deep Dive Into The Trend of Shake Down TCPA Lawsuits in Latest Webinar

Chat soon!

 

Discover more from TCPAWorld

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories:

Published by Eric "Czar" 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.

5 Comments

  1. In Gomez v. Gage Bowl (the “Exit” one), the stop notifier seems to have invited it just like the “S” one. Gomez is replying to a text that says “reply EXIT 2quit”. Those two seem more valid than the others.

    Reply

  2. The FCC says that one need not opt out where one never opted in. But, even so, when I type STOP or END, I still get more texts. I’ve tried F— (rhymes with truck) OFF, and that does not work, either. Perhaps telemarketing texters should consider ANY response to be an opt out; magic words should not be required.

    Reply

  3. Especially with the solar solicitation purportedly being sent from a live human, it seems unusual to me a live operator would need machine-readable text to understand the intent. I have frequently run into companies swearing up and down I was speaking to a live operator who, conveniently, cannot read a plain English opt-out. In those instances, it was because the texts were sent from a robot and the company (or their counsel) was lying their ass off.

    Reply

  4. TCPA defendants and their attorneys are all impeccably honest and would never lie, especially in a courtroom. The reason you had problems with the live operator reading your text responses was because the telemarketer hires employees who are blind or illiterate and they could not read your text message responses.

    Reply

  5. How do companies that vomit messages and never look at replies comply with a request for the internal do not call policy? If the internal DNC policy was accurate, it would state that the only possible way to opt out is through a text message saying stop. This method is not recognized as meeting the minimum requirements and thus the underlying SMS would violate the regulations.

    Reply

Leave a Reply