Exposing Individual Issues Regarding Consent Can Help Defeat Class Certification

Consumer Finance   |   July 8, 2014

Recent decisions suggest it may be tougher for plaintiffs to obtain class certification in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) matters where individual issues regarding consent predominate. The TCPA imposes $500 statutory damages per call (including text messages) where the recipient did not provide the requisite consent to the communication, and up to $1,500 per knowing and willful violation. Because the risks associated with protracted class action litigation are compounded by the TCPA’s generous damages scheme, the best chance for minimizing exposure in such matters is at the certification stage.

One strategy for defending against certification is to exploit individualized issues related to consent. Recently, a California federal district court ruled that predominance was not demonstrated under Rule 23(b) where issues of consent could not be established with class-wide proof. In Fields v. Mobile Messengers Am., Inc., the consumer plaintiffs claimed to be victims of "cramming," a purported scam that results in the placement of "unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges on a consumer’s cell phone bill." The plaintiffs complained of receiving monthly charges for the periodic receipt of unsolicited text messages containing trivia or horoscope information.

The defendants produced evidence indicating that consent was obtained from more than 1.5 million potential class members when they entered their information into one of the defendants’ websites, which detailed available text message subscription plans. The plaintiffs’ contradictory evidence showed that at least some of the putative class members had not responded to the defendants’ confirmation text messages, and that it may have been possible for the defendants to manipulate the data regarding subscription confirmations. Because there was insufficient class-wide evidence regarding consent, the court denied certification.

Exploiting individualized consent issues may not work where other factors supersede those related to consent. For example, in C-Mart, Inc. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., a Florida federal district court determined that, because a defendant’s fax solicitations failed to include necessary opt-out language, the communications would have violated the TCPA even if valid consent was obtained. Still, companies should focus on individualized issues including those related to consent where appropriate, as doing so could help defeat certification.

©2023 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Subscribe to Publications


The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.