Navigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
November 12, 2024 at 09:03 AM
4 minute read
Commercial Litigation
A recent decision out of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida was very favorable for businesses defending Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA) and Florida Telemarketing Act (FTA) claims. The decision in Adams v. Safelite Group reinforced the May 2023 FTSA amendments, particularly the text message “STOP” safe harbor provision, which applies to uncertified putative class actions pending when the amendments took effect. Additionally, the court have clarified critical points regarding FTSA and FTA claims: for an FTSA claim to proceed, plaintiffs must specifically allege they replied “STOP” to any unsolicited message before filing suit, as this opt-out action is now a prerequisite under the amended FTSA; the FTA’s definition of “commercial telephone solicitation” applies only to communications inviting a telephone response or followed by a sales call, thereby excluding text messages without such elements.
These rulings impose stricter pleading requirements for plaintiffs and limit the scope of qualifying communications, providing companies with robust defenses against FTSA and FTA claims. Let’s delve into this decision and their implications for defending FTSA and FTA class actions, whether newly filed or still pending.
|
FTSA Claims and the 'STOP' Requirement
Recent amendments to the FTSA impose an added burden on plaintiffs regarding text message solicitations. Specifically, the FTSA requires plaintiffs to allege they replied “STOP” to any unsolicited text message as a precondition for bringing claims. According to Florida House Bill 761 (2023), effective May 25, 2023, plaintiffs must allege that they received at least one text message from an automated system within 15 days after replying “STOP” to a previous message. This amendment reflects a safe harbor provision aimed at preventing frivolous litigation by requiring clear opt-out attempts.
The court in Adams, relying on the plain language of the statute and other recent decisions, dismissed the plaintiff’s FTSA claim because the plaintiff failed to allege that she replied “STOP” to an unsolicited communication. The ruling emphasized that the plaintiff did not—and, could not—satisfy the new statutory pleading requirements, thus barring class action claims under the amended FTSA.
This case underscores the heightened pleading standard, as plaintiffs must now specifically include a “STOP” response in their complaint to maintain an FTSA claim if not certified prior to the effective date of the amendment.
|
FTA and the Scope of 'Commercial Telephone Solicitation'
The court also clarified claims under the Florida Telemarketing Act (FTA) that in 2021 placed new restrictions on “commercial telephone solicitation phone calls” by shortening the permissible calling period to between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. (from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.); by limiting the number of calls to the same person about the same topic to three per 24-hour period; and by creating criminal penalties for using caller identification spoofing technology in making these calls. Section 501.603(1) of the Florida Statutes defines commercial solicitation to include certain written communications, but only if they invite a response by telephone or are followed by a salesperson’s call.
In Adams, the text message the plaintiff received included a link to an advertised product but did not invite a telephone response or include a phone number. Because the FTA clarifies that listing a phone number without a clear invitation to call does not constitute an invitation to respond, the court found the text fell outside the statute’s scope. Thus, even if a text message qualifies as a “written communication,” the plaintiff’s allegations failed to show the message met FTA requirements for “commercial telephone solicitation.”
|
Implications for Plaintiffs and Class Actions
With that, the court dismissed the complaint—a big win for Safelite and all businesses facing FTSA and FTA litigation. The recent amendments to the FTSA and the FTA’s strict definition of solicitation impose higher standards on plaintiffs seeking relief for alleged telemarketing violations. The “STOP” response requirement under the FTSA confers a safe harbor that can protect companies from litigation if plaintiffs fail to allege clear opt-out attempts. Similarly, the FTA’s telephone response requirement limits its application, excluding text messages that do not invite direct phone interactions.
Editor's Note: Bradley Arant Boult Cummings’ own team, including Alexis Buese, Doug Robertson and Paige Knight, represented Safelite in this case.
Alexis Buese is a partner with Bradley Arant Boult Cummings. She has a practice that involves all aspects of commercial litigation, with an emphasis on class action, financial services litigation, contract disputes, and real estate and consumer class action litigation.
Doug Robertson is a senior attorney in the firm's litigation practice group.
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 AllSecrecy Or Prejudice: Panelists Debate Transparency in Litigation Financing Arrangements
Big Law Assembles as Cruise Lines Clinch Partial Victory in $439M Havana Docks Suit
Purchaser Representative in Truth Social Deal Seeks Trump Media Records
3 minute readJudge Gives Green Light to Bal Harbour Developer in Legal Dispute
Trending Stories
- 1Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 2The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
- 3Law Firm Accused of Barratry for Allegedly Soliciting Crash Victims
- 4Carlton Fields Downsizes in Move to New Atlanta Office
- 5Trump's Selection of Zeldin to Head EPA Draws Surprise, Little Hope of Avoiding Deregulation
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