ARTICLE
30 August 2024

Telephone And Texting Compliance News — August 2024

M
Mintz

Contributor

Mintz is a litigation powerhouse and business accelerator serving leaders in life sciences, private equity, sustainable energy, and technology. The world’s most innovative companies trust Mintz to provide expert advice, protect and monetize their IP, negotiate deals, source financing, and solve complex legal challenges. The firm has over 600 attorneys across offices in Boston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Washington, DC, San Francisco, San Diego, and Toronto.
We are pleased to present our latest edition of Telephone and Texting Compliance News, providing insights and news related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
United States Texas Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

We are pleased to present our latest edition of Telephone and Texting Compliance News, providing insights and news related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In this month's Regulatory Update, we cover the FCC's Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) against voice service provider Lingo Telecom for transmitting illegally spoofed, deep fake robocalls. To resolve the NAL, Lingo will pay a $1 million civil penalty and implement a plan requiring strict compliance with the FCC's STIR/SHAKEN and caller ID authentication rules. We also provide an overview of the FCC's draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking focused on requirements for AI-generated robocalls and robotexts and its Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on how the FCC can protect the privacy of parties involved in calls using AI technologies.

In this month's Litigation Update, we report on a decision from a Texas federal court in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control. Along with granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the court provided guidance on when a call or text message qualifies as telemarketing under the TCPA. Noting the parties' contractual relationship, the Bradford court held that the defendant's calls to the plaintiff were informational and not telemarketing. The court also determined that the plaintiff gave prior express consent for the calls by providing his cell phone number when entering into the service plan agreement.

If you have suggestions for topics you'd like us to feature in this newsletter, or any questions about the content in this issue, please feel free to reach out to an attorney on Mintz's TCPA and Consumer Calling Practice team.

In This Edition

Regulatory Update

Litigation Update

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More