Suit Claims High-End Miami Brokerage RelatedISG Sent Unsolicited Texts
RelatedISG International Realty is accused of sending unsolicited text messages promoting its services and listings.
August 13, 2018 at 04:02 PM
4 minute read
Luxury South Florida real estate brokerage RelatedISG International Realty has been accused of breaking the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited texts promoting its services and listings.
RelatedISG, based in Miami-Dade County and created from the partnership of developer The Related Group and sales and marketing firm International Sales Group LLC, sells residential and commercial real estate and markets projects, some of them still pre-construction.
RelatedISG allegedly sent the unsolicited text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system to recipients in South Florida in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the 1991 law adopted to protect from abusive telemarketing. The law was adopted with phone calls and faxes in mind but now it applies to texts, too.
RelatedISG and International Sales Group didn't return a request for comment, and The Related Group declined comment.
The plaintiff is Manuel Gonzalez, although little information is provided on who he is aside that he lives in Miami-Dade. He asserts that RelatedISG sent similar text messages to the messages he got to thousands of recipients, also without their consent.
Gonzalez received four texts between June 29 and July 4 from a short phone number promoting homes for sale starting in the mid-$300,000s in Southwest Miami-Dade, according to the complaint filed Thursday in federal court for the Southern District of Florida.
“Related Realty's unsolicited texts were a nuisance that aggravated plaintiff, wasted his time, invaded his privacy, diminished the value of the cellular services he paid for, caused him to temporarily lose the use and enjoyment of his cell phone, and caused wear and tear to his phone's data, memory, software, hardware, and battery,” Kaufman attorney Avi Kaufman wrote in the complaint.
He declined to comment further when reached by phone.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction for RelatedISG to stop sending the texts, an award of actual and/or statutory damages, an order certifying this case as a class action and appointing Gonzalez as class representative, and a jury trial.
Erica Rutner, a partner in Lash & Goldberg in Miami who represents defendants in TCPA lawsuits, said she has seen an increase in lawsuits filed under the act in Florida's Southern District, against real estate companies and other businesses.
That's because of a July 10, 2015, ruling by the Federal Communications Commission, which implements and enforces the TCPA, that made it easier to bring lawsuits under the act, Rutner said. The ruling broadened the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system, which must be used for a defendant to be held liable under the act.
“The statutory definition of an ADTS, or an automatic telephone dialing system, is defined as equipment that has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator. … It's sort of a convoluted definition. It gave rise to a lot of confusion in the courts as to what type of equipment counts as an ADTS. In 2015, the FCC determined that in their view of the way ADTS is defined, any equipment that's used to make calls or send text messages qualifies as an auto-dialer as long as it has a potential future capability to dial,” Rutner said.
That qualified even smartphones as auto-dialers, she added.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a March review said the FCC ruling would subject millions of consumers to TCPA liability, not just companies, and told the FCC to re-evaluate its decision, according to Rutner.
“Since we don't have that (ADTS) definition yet, there's still a lot of ambiguity in what direction the law is going to go in,” she said. “That's maybe why we are seeing a lot of these TCPA cases.”
|
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250