BLOG

Papa John’s settles texting suit

Last year a class action law suit was filed against Papa John’s for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for texts received by Papa John’s customers. Customers allege they never opted in to receive promotional text from the company. Papa John’s claim that they didn’t send the marketing, but instead was sent by third party contractors.

A blog post on lawyers.com says that Papa John’s settled the case for $16.5 million.

[Plaintiff's lawyer] McCue recently represented a plaintiff before the FCC, which resulted in a ruling clarifying that companies who contract other firms to make illegal phone calls can still be held liable under the TCPA. The rule could have hurt Papa John’s claim that it was their marketing contractor, not them, which sent the unwanted texts, had the lawsuit ever gone to trial. The FCC ruling further noted that the company selling the product in question is more likely to be held vicariously liable for phone calls or texts if it authorized the marketers to act on its behalf and use its brand name, and if it helped design training sessions or provide information about the product to the people actually making the calls. “This Order is very significant for consumers as it sets forth the circumstances pursuant to which defendants will be liable for telemarketing acts of third parties in violation of the TCPA,” the attorney says.”Enforcement of the TCPA is the only realistic means in which consumers can address and prevent illegal telemarketing.”

The FCC ruling doesn’t impact email marketing, but the revised definition of “initiate” may have roots in the CAN SPAM act. CAN SPAM also uses the “initiate” terminology to designate who sent or procured an email to be sent. The FCC ruling states.

we clarify that while a seller does not generally “initiate” calls made through a third-party telemarketer within the meaning of the TCPA, it nonetheless may be held vicariously liable under federal common law principles of agency for violations of either section 227(b) or section 227(c) that are committed by third-party telemarketers. Dish Network Settlement with FCC.

Overall, it seems Papa John’s has discovered that hiring someone to do their law breaking for them doesn’t necessarily mean they’re off the legal hook. It’s probably too much to hope that real companies will be held accountable for the spam sent advertising their products and services.

Hat Tip: CAUCE

1 comment

  1. Tom says

    Amazingly there still spamming me with SMS in the UK!

Comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • AOL problems

    Lots of people are reporting ongoing (RTR:GE) messages from AOL today.  This indicates the AOL mail servers are having problems and can't accept mail. This has nothing to do with spam, filtering or malicious email. This is simply their servers aren't functioning as well as they should be and so AOL can't accept all the mail thrown at them. These types of blocks resolve themselves. No Comments


  • Fixing discussion lists to work with new Yahoo policy

    Al has some really good advice on how to fix discussion lists to work with the new Yahoo policy. One thing I would add is the suggestion to actually check dmarc records before assuming policy. This will not only mean you're not having to rewrite things that don't need to be rewritten, but it will also mean you won't be caught flat footed if (when?) other free mail providers start publishing p=reject.No Comments


  • Sendgrid's open letter to Gmail

    Paul Kincaid-Smith wrote an open letter to Gmail about their experiences with the Gmail FBL and how the data from Gmail helped Sendgrid find problem customers. I know a lot of folks are frustrated with Gmail not returning more than statistics, but there is a place for this type of feedback within a comprehensive compliance desk.No Comments


Archives