Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor logo
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2024 6:12 am
Monitoring the financial services industry to help companies navigate through regulatory compliance, enforcement, and litigation issues
Fourth Circuit Concludes that TCPA’s Exemption for Government-Backed Debts Violates Free Speech
Golden Seal Sized
By David N. Anthony, Virginia Bell Flynn, Chad R. Fuller, David M. Gettings, John C. Lynch, Ethan G. Ostroff, Alan D. Wingfield & Brooke Conkle on April 26, 2019
Posted in All Entries, Featured Posts, TCPA
Earlier this week, the Fourth Circuit struck down a provision of bc data brazil the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) that exempted government-backed debts from the statute’s prohibition on automated calls to cellular telephones. According to the Court in American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al v. FCC, the debt-collection exemption does not pass strict scrutiny and, therefore, contravenes the Free Speech Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court, however, did not go so far as to find the TCPA’s ban on automated calls unconstitutional as a whole. Instead, the Court severed “the flawed exemption” from the TCPA. Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit’s decision represents another example of courts heavily scrutinizing the TCPA’s reach.
The TCPA, in existence since 1991, regulates calls to cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Historically, the TCPA has included two exclusions: one for calls made with the called party’s prior express consent and a second for calls made for emergency purposes. In 2015, Congress enacted a third exemption for calls “made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.”
In May 2016, a group of plaintiffs including the American Association of Political Consultants, the Democratic Party of Oregon, Public Policy Polling, the Washington State Democratic Central Committee, and the Tea Party Forward PAC filed suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina to challenge the third exemption as a content-based restriction on speech that does not satisfy strict scrutiny. The plaintiffs contended that the debt collection exemption created a regime that unconstitutionally favored a select group and turned on the call’s content, in violation of the Constitution. Both the plaintiffs and the government filed motions for summary judgment. The District Court found in favor of the government, concluding that the exemption, though content-based, passed strict scrutiny and was constitutional.
Fourth Circuit Concludes that TCPA’s Exemption for Government-Backed Debts Violates Free Speech
Golden Seal Sized
By David N. Anthony, Virginia Bell Flynn, Chad R. Fuller, David M. Gettings, John C. Lynch, Ethan G. Ostroff, Alan D. Wingfield & Brooke Conkle on April 26, 2019
Posted in All Entries, Featured Posts, TCPA
Earlier this week, the Fourth Circuit struck down a provision of bc data brazil the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) that exempted government-backed debts from the statute’s prohibition on automated calls to cellular telephones. According to the Court in American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al v. FCC, the debt-collection exemption does not pass strict scrutiny and, therefore, contravenes the Free Speech Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court, however, did not go so far as to find the TCPA’s ban on automated calls unconstitutional as a whole. Instead, the Court severed “the flawed exemption” from the TCPA. Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit’s decision represents another example of courts heavily scrutinizing the TCPA’s reach.
The TCPA, in existence since 1991, regulates calls to cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Historically, the TCPA has included two exclusions: one for calls made with the called party’s prior express consent and a second for calls made for emergency purposes. In 2015, Congress enacted a third exemption for calls “made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.”
In May 2016, a group of plaintiffs including the American Association of Political Consultants, the Democratic Party of Oregon, Public Policy Polling, the Washington State Democratic Central Committee, and the Tea Party Forward PAC filed suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina to challenge the third exemption as a content-based restriction on speech that does not satisfy strict scrutiny. The plaintiffs contended that the debt collection exemption created a regime that unconstitutionally favored a select group and turned on the call’s content, in violation of the Constitution. Both the plaintiffs and the government filed motions for summary judgment. The District Court found in favor of the government, concluding that the exemption, though content-based, passed strict scrutiny and was constitutional.