Lawsuit Targets Marijuana Firm Trulieve Over Text Messages
Quincy-based Trulieve allegedly violated federal communications laws by sending unsolicited text messages to a Tennessee man that advertised special deals on marijuana products.
December 13, 2019 at 02:24 PM
4 minute read
In a federal lawsuit seeking millions of dollars in damages, a Tennessee man is accusing Florida's largest medical marijuana operator of illegally sending text messages to his cellphone.
The lawsuit alleges that Quincy-based Trulieve Inc. violated federal communications laws by sending unsolicited text messages to Mats Jaslow that advertised special deals on marijuana products in October and November.
The lawsuit does not say whether Jaslow is a patient in Florida or how Trulieve, one of the state's 22 licensed medical marijuana operators, obtained his cellphone number. A lawyer for Jaslow told The News Service of Florida on Wednesday he could not elaborate on the complaint.
Trulieve also declined to comment.
"We are aware of the complaint and our policy is not to comment on ongoing legal matters," Trulieve said in a statement when asked about the lawsuit.
Jaslow, who is seeking class-action status in the lawsuit, is asking for $1,500 for each violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The damages, "when aggregated among a proposed class numbering in the tens of thousands, or more," exceeds a $5 million threshold for federal jurisdiction in class-action lawsuits, the lawsuit said.
The complaint includes screenshots of two text messages sent to Jaslow from phone numbers the lawsuit said are owned and operated by Trulieve.
"Hello Trulievers! Buy 2 Get 1 Free on TruClear today. Stackable with one 10% off discount for Vets, Snap or Trulievers," said one message, which included a link to Trulieve's website.
"Happy Flower Friday Trulievers! Roll into the weekend with our restock of prerolls and flower. Doors open at 10 am. Visit www.trulieve.com. Have a great day!" a second message said.
The text messages "constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling plaintiff cannabis products," Andrew J. Shamis, of Miami-based Shamis & Gentile, and Aventura lawyer Scott Edelsberg wrote in the complaint.
Many of the state's medical marijuana operators communicate with customers by text message to advertise specials on products.
The federal communications act restricts telemarketing calls and the use of automated telephone calls. Rules initiated in 2012 require telemarketers to obtain prior written consent from consumers before initiating robocalls.
But in the complaint filed in the federal Northern District of Florida, Jaslow's lawyers said he never gave Trulieve written permission to contact him through an automatic telephone dialing system.
The unsolicited messages from Trulieve "caused plaintiff actual harm including invasion of his privacy, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass and conversion," Jaslow's lawyers wrote in the 17-page complaint.
The messages "also inconvenienced plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life," the lawsuit alleges.
According to the lawsuit, the messages caused the plaintiff to spend "approximately 10 minutes investigating the unwanted text messages including how they obtained his number and who the defendant was."
The unwanted messages also took up memory on the plaintiff's cellphone, posing "a real risk of ultimately rendering the phone unusable for text messaging purposes" and slowing down the phone's performance, the lawsuit alleges.
In seeking class-action status, Jaslow's lawyers wrote that Trulieve "has placed automated and/or prerecorded calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers throughout the United States without their prior consent," but the exact number of potential plaintiffs is unknown.
Along with seeking financial damages, Jaslow is asking a federal judge to ban Trulieve from using automatic telephone dialing systems to text messages to cellphones without permission from the person being called. The plaintiff is also asking for a jury trial.
Dara Kam reports for the News Service of Florida.
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 AllJudge Slaps $16 Million Penalty on Defendants in Wyndham Timeshare Advertising Fraud Case
4 minute readGibson Dunn Recruits S&C Partner to Co-Lead M&A Practice, in 2-Partner Hire
Consumer Class Action Accuses Fabletics of Misleading Customers of 'VIP Membership Program' Value
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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