Insights / articlesInsights
Insights / articles

Litigation Byte

District Court Finds Defendant Honored Opt-out Request Within Reasonable Timeframe under TCPA

Read Time: 2 mins

The Northern District of New York recently granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action on the grounds that the defendant honored the named class representative’s request to opt out of text messages within a reasonable time under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Background

Plaintiff received a text message from Defendant and requested to opt out of Defendant’s text messages by replying with “stop.” Plaintiff alleged, however, that he continued to receive text messages. Plaintiff alleged Defendant had the ability to immediately opt Plaintiff out of further communications and chose not to do so. As such, Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of himself and a putative class action under the TCPA.

In response, Defendant alleged that it had written “Do-Not-Call” policies as required by the TCPA, and the complaint established that it honored Plaintiff’s opt-out request within a reasonable timeframe by halting further text messages seven business days after the opt-out request was received.

Court’s Decision

The Court found Defendant’s arguments persuasive and granted its motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiff failed to plead a viable claim under the TCPA. As the Court explained, the TCPA requires that telemarketing persons or entities honor an individual’s Do-Not-Call request within a reasonable time from the date that such a request is made. Many courts have held that a delay of more than 30 days would be considered unreasonable. 

As the Court found, honoring an opt-out request within seven business days is reasonable under the TCPA as a matter of law, citing other cases within the Second Circuit that have found longer delays reasonable under the TCPA. 

As the Court noted: “[t]hese cases suggest that even though § 64.1200(d)(3) does not create a definitive safe harbor for delays under 30 days, especially short delays may be found to be reasonable on the pleadings alone, without a fact-intensive inquiry.”

Subscribe for Updates

Receive emails regarding timely legal developments and events in your areas of interest.

subscribe >

Insights

Alert

SCOTUS Hears Arguments on Judicial Interpretation of Agency Authority Under the TCPA

January 28, 2025

On January 21, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., a case and decision that may have an outsized impact on the nature of judicial review of federal agency legal interpretations. At issue before the Court was whether the Hobbs Act requires district courts to follow the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) interpretation that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) does not prohibit unsolicited advertisements via fax.

Alert

New York District Court Rejects Arguments That TCPA Claims Are Non-Removable

December 20, 2024

On December 4, 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, as a matter of first impression, denied pro se plaintiff’s motion to remand claims against a national bank for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which arose from calls allegedly received by plaintiff after he registered his cellular phone with the national “Do Not Call Registry”.

Alert

Supreme Court to Hear TCPA Class Action on Unsolicited Faxes and Online Fax Services

October 9, 2024

For the second time in five years, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case that arises out of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) ban on the sending of unsolicited faxes. On Friday, October 3, 2024, the Court said it would hear arguments about whether to reopen a class action lawsuit filed by a group of chiropractors, McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, against medical tech company McKesson Corp.

Alert

Lack of Actual Knowledge and Prior Express Consent Defeats FDCPA and TCPA Claims

September 24, 2024

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a case arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). It found that the evidence did not reasonably support an inference that the defendant had actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s legal representation regarding an account and that the plaintiff providing her phone number regarding the original transaction is consent to communications originating from that transaction, including efforts to collect on the debt.