PharMerica Seeks Court Approval for TCPA Class Action Settlement

November 13, 2015

tcpa-class-actionYesterday, the Court in Pines Nursing Home, Inc. v. PharMerica Corporation heard both parties seeking court approval of a TCPA class action settlement agreement. The case involves allegations by Pine Nursing Home, Inc. (“Pine”) that PharMerica Corporation (“PharMerica”) used a telecopier machine, computer or other device to send advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (“TCPA”) Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (“JFPA”). The parties spent months negotiating a settlement agreement before a Court-ordered mediator prior to coming to an accord. Among other things, PharMerica agreed to pay claims, administrative and legal fees which could cost up to $15 million.

How did PhaMerica Allegedly Violate the TCPA?

PharMerica Settles TCPA Class Action

The complaint filed against PharMerica alleges that on February 28, 2011, PharMerica sent an unsolicited fax advertisement to Pine. According to the joint memorandum of law filed by the parties seeking court approval of the settlement agreement, the class of consumers who were sent unsolicited fax advertisements may exceed 11,000.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, PharMerica will create a net settlement fund that will be calculated as follows: $300 multiplied by the number of fax transmissions sent to class members submitting approved claims up to 5,260 fax transmissions, and then $150 multiplied by the number of fax transmissions sent to class members submitting approved claims in excess of 5,260 fax transmissions. Class members who submit timely claims will be entitled to recover at least $156.50 per fax transmission, and potentially as much as $300 per fax transmission. In addition, PharMerica has agreed to: 1) materially change its fax marketing practices to comply with the JFPA; and 2) provide training to pertinent employees about compliance with the JFPA.

Pursuant to a minute entry recorded on the docket yesterday, the “Court will enter order giving final approval to settlement, and other issues.” The parties must submit a proposed order to the Court by November 16, 2015.

Protect Yourself

During discovery, it was revealed that PharMerica used a third-party fax blasting service to send the advertisements at issue in the case. Noticeably, the fax-blasting marketing company was not named in the litigation and, under the agreement pending court approval, PharMerica is solely responsible for the settlement funds. To prevent a similar eventuality, it is imperative that companies using third party marketers insure that they are TCPA compliant, and draft agreements providing for indemnity in cases where the marketer is not.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, please visit the Telemarketing Law practice area of our website. If you have been served with process concerning the TCPA or your telemarketing practices, please e-mail us at or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for informational 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

Similar blog posts:

FCC Ruling: TCPA Governs eFax Ads

TCPA Does Not Apply to Informational Faxes

FCC Grants 117 Limited TCPA Waivers for Fax Ads


David Klein

David Klein is one of the most recognized attorneys in the technology, Internet marketing, sweepstakes, and telecommunications fields. Skilled at counseling clients on a broad range of technology-related matters, David Klein has substantial experience in negotiating and drafting complex licensing, marketing and Internet agreements.

Trending Topics

FTSA florida FTSA standing man holding phone telemarketing telemarketers

FTSA Standing

Readers of our blog may recall a recent article in which we discussed two Florida class action lawsuits that significantly limited telemarketing companies’ exposure in

Read More »