Disclaimer

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.

 Skip to Content

Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Defendant Taco Bell in Putative TCPA Text Message Class Action
September 16, 2014

The recipient of a text message advertising Taco Bell products sued the company, alleging that the message violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) prohibition on calls to cell phones using an auto-dialer or artificial or prerecorded voice, without the recipient’s prior express consent. However, the message was not sent by Taco Bell, but by a text-messaging service retained by an advertising agency hired by the Chicago Area Taco Bell Local Owners Advertising Association. The Association is comprised of Chicago area store owners and Taco Bell.

In affirming the district court’s decision in favor of Taco Bell, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Thomas v. Taco Bell Corp., cited a recent FCC ruling, noting that the TCPA contemplates vicarious liability. Specifically, to establish vicarious liability, plaintiff had to establish that the Association, advertising agency and text-messaging service acted as agents of Taco Bell, i.e., that Taco Bell controlled or had the right to control the manner and means of the text message campaign.

The court agreed that Taco Bell did not control the actions of these entities with respect to the text-messaging campaign. It added that the FCC ruling also contemplates vicarious liability through theories of apparent authority and ratification but concluded that an apparent authority theory failed because the plaintiff could not establish that she reasonably relied to her detriment on any apparent authority between Taco Bell and these entities. The court similarly discarded the ratification theory because it, too, requires a principal-agent relationship which it had already concluded did not exist.
Related Practices
Consumer Finance Telephone Consumer Protection Act
©2024 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.