TCPA text

TCPA Text Class Action Against Wolf of Wall Street Dismissed

On December 27, 2022, Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida entered an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint in Stephen Muccio v. Global Motivation, Inc. and Jordan Belfort.This class action complaint alleged that Jordan Belfort a.k.a. “The Wolf of Wall Street,” and his company, Global Motivation, Inc (“GMI”), had sent marketing communications in violation of both the TCPA and the FTSA. The TCPA, or Telephone Consumer Protection Act, is a federal statute designed to protect consumer privacy by restricting certain types of telemarketing communications. The FTSA is Florida’s Mini-TCPA, or its state equivalent of the TCPA. Along with California, Florida has been one of the most active jurisdictions in protecting the privacy rights of consumers. In some respects, the FTSA is even more restrictive than the TCPA. The primary intent of both statutes is to have businesses only send telemarketing communications to consumers who have provided their express written consent to be contacted. Mr. Muccio’s complaint alleged that Mr. Belfort had overseen or authorized the unsolicited commercial text messaging to at least 100 Florida consumers by GMI.

The importance of the Court’s dismissal cannot be overstated. Although a variety of nuanced defenses were raised by Mr. Belfort and GMI, Judge Cannon’s order decided the matter on the threshold issue of standing. Simply stated, Mr. Muccio had not demonstrated injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. Thus, his TCPA text message claims could not be heard in federal court and the action was summarily dismissed.

Mr. Muccio’s TCPA Text Message Claims Against Mr. Belfort

On November 3, 2022, Mr. Muccio filed a five-count First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Mr. Belfort and GMI. The FAC alleged that Mr. Muccio, a Palm Beach County resident, received five unsolicited commercial text messages from GMI. Chief among Mr. Muccio’s class action claims were that: (1) consumers did not provide prior consent to receive the alleged telemarketing communications; (2) GMI did not maintain an internal do-not-call list (“IDNC”); and (3) GMI utilized an automated telephone dialing system to send the subject text messages. 

In his prayer for relief, Mr. Muccio asked for statutory damages for each class member under the TCPA and FTSA. The TCPA allows for recovery of $500-1500, per violation. The FTSA allows recovery of $500-1500, per violation, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Given the size of the proposed class, the ramifications of class certification were enormous.

Mr. Belfort’s Motion to Dismiss

On November 14, 2022, Mr. Belfort and GMI filed a Motion to Dismiss Mr. Muccio’s FAC. The Motion primarily sought dismissal for lack of Article III standing and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Before proceeding to Defendants’ argument that Mr. Muccio had failed to state a claim, Judge Cannon first examined whether Mr. Muccio had Article III standing to bring a federal claim. By way of background, in the context of unsolicited text messages, the opinion in Salcedo v. Hanna is binding precedent for the Eleventh Circuit. In Salcedo, the plaintiff alleged violations of the TCPA after the receipt of a single unsolicited commercial text message. The court decided that pleading generalized intrusions on privacy does not qualify as an injury in fact under Article III. Using the Salcedo decision as a framework, Judge Cannon determined that this injury analysis does not change even if Mr. Muccio alleged that he received five text messages, as opposed to one: he still failed to plead any peculiarized or concrete harm. In fact, Mr. Muccio employed the same general injury language that most, if not all, TCPA text message plaintiffs use: “inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights.” Accordingly, Mr. Muccio failed to establish the requirements of standing and, as such, the Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over his claims, dismissing same without prejudice. 

Why is the Muccio Decision Important to your Business?

Judge Cannon’s decision is an important reminder that successful TCPA text lawsuit defense work can take effect at any stage of a litigation proceeding, even at the pleading stages. While the team at Klein Moynihan Turco presented succinct arguments for why Mr. Muccio had failed to state a claim, the Court decided the matter based on the initial discussion of standing. This favorable decision is one in a long line of victories that the attorneys at Klein Moynihan Turco have achieved for their clients at various stages in defending TCPA class action matters. Whether early or late in litigation, we are constantly evaluating all avenues to dispose of actions and provide our clients with closure.

If you require assistance with telemarketing law compliance or related litigation defense, please email us at 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 Miquel Parera on Unsplash

Similar Blog Posts:

First Circuit Vacates Massive TCPA Class Action Settlement Due to Conflict

Florida TCPA Action Survives Motion to Dismiss

Duguid v. Facebook, Footnote 7: TCPA Landscape Significantly Altered by Ninth Circuit Decision


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

TCPA vicarious tcpa law woman holding cellphone telemarketing laws

TCPA Vicarious Liability

An Illinois federal district court judge recently held that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) may be vicariously liable for alleged Telephone Consumer

Read More »