The Sixth Circuit recently held that a facsimile which lacks commercial components on its face does not constitute an advertisement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and ruled that the possibility of remote economic benefit to a defendant is “legally irrelevant” to determining whether the fax violates the TCPA. The Sixth Circuit’s narrow rule stands out among decisions from other courts that have adopted an expansive interpretation of “advertisement” under the TCPA, and demonstrates that the scope of the TCPA is indeed subject to limitations.
A new decision once again highlights the dangers that companies face if their independent contractors engage in conduct that violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and highlights the need to monitor contractor compliance with the TCPA. In City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. David/Randall Assocs., Inc., a federal court in New Jersey recently found a roofing company, David/Randall Associates, liable for $22.4 million under the TCPA for the actions of its blast fax solutions provider, Business to Business Solutions (B2B).
To read the full alert, click here.