Last month, Lendify Associates LLC (“Defendant”) was sued in the Central District Court of California for allegedly violating the internal Do Not Call (or “DNC”) list compliance requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). As our readers are aware, the TCPA contains various provisions designed to restrict certain telephone solicitations that may invade upon the privacy of United States consumers. One of these provisions requires that telemarketing companies maintain an internal Do Not Call list comprised of consumers that have requested not to receive any further telemarketing calls/texts from, or on behalf of, said companies. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the TCPA and creates a private right of action for the aggrieved to recover statutory damages.
The Lendify Internal DNC Lawsuit
In Griffin v. Lendify Associates LLC, Plaintiff alleged that she received at least five text messages promoting Defendant’s financial services. On three occasions, Plaintiff claims, she requested that Defendant place her cell phone number on its internal Do Not Call list. Plaintiff alleges that, despite her requests, she continued to receive unsolicited telephone calls from Defendant or its agents.
The TCPA’s internal DNC compliance provisions require, among other things, that companies institute procedures for: 1) creating a list of consumers who elect to opt out of the receipt of future communications; and 2) training their employees on how to honor such opt out requests. Based on the facts as pled, it would appear that at least four of the subject marketing calls may have been initiated in violation of the TCPA’s internal Do Not Call rules.
Key Requirements of the TCPA’s Internal Do Not Call Rules
As an initial matter, it is important to note that Internal DNC claims are different from more commonly pled National DNC violations. With respect to internal DNC claims, once a consumer asks to be added to an internal DNC list, the company is generally prohibited from contacting the consumer again.
Internal Do Not Call regulations further require that:
- Companies must place the consumer’s name, if provided, and telephone number on their internal DNC lists at the time the subject request is made;
- Companies must promptly honor internal DNC requests, but in no case later than 10 business days from the date of each such request;
- Companies engaged in placing artificial and/or prerecorded voice calls must have a written policy, available upon demand, for maintaining Do Not Call lists; and
- Companies must train their personnel concerning the existence, and use, of their internal DNC lists.
Why is Lendify Important to Your Business?
The Plaintiff in Lendify filed her claims as part of a class action lawsuit. Readers of this blog are aware that the TCPA allows for class members to recover damages of $500 to $1,500 per violation. This means that Defendant is potentially liable for thousands of violations of the TCPA’s Internal DNC provisions. If the class is eventually certified, even at the statutory minimum of $500 per violation, Defendant faces an enormous judgment.
Against this backdrop, it is critical that companies maintain proper internal Do Not Call compliance procedures. The attorneys at Klein Moynihan Turco regularly advise clients on DNC compliance and defend TCPA class action matters.
If you require assistance with telemarketing law compliance or related litigation defense, please email us at info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900.
The material contained herein is provided for information purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.
Attorney advertising
Photo by Sam Grozyan on Unsplash
Similar Blog Posts:
The Telemarketer’s Guide To Do-Not-Call Compliance
TCPA Text Class Action Against Wolf of Wall Street Dismissed
Duguid v. Facebook, Footnote 7: TCPA Landscape Significantly Altered by Ninth Circuit Decision
