TCPA Class Action Review – 2025

II. Significant Rulings In TCPA Class Actions 1. Rulings Granting Class Certification

Bradley, et al. v. Dentalplans.com, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100550 (D. Md. June 6, 2024), highlights two scenarios in which class action waivers and arbitration clauses are ineffective. The plaintiff filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated the TCPA by making unauthorized telemarketing calls to her and a proposed class of former DentalPlans customers. Having previously been a DentalPlans customer, the plaintiff continued to receive prerecorded calls after her plan had expired. She filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted. The proposed class included all individuals who were non-customers at the time they received calls from the defendant using a prerecorded voice message, on their cellular phones, aimed at selling goods or services, during periods when certain marketing scripts were used. Id. at *27. A subclass was designated for those who had previously held a dental plan through Cigna, one of the defendant’s dental savings plan providers. Id. at *28. The defendant contended that class action waivers and arbitration clauses in its agreements barred class certification. Id. at *29. However, the court determined that these clauses did not apply because the claims pertained to calls made after membership had expired. Id. at *31-32. Additionally, the court found that the website terms were not binding on the telephone sign-ups, as those plaintiffs never visited defendant’s website. Id. at *32. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims and those of the class all involved common questions, such as whether the defendant’s calls constituted telemarketing and whether the class members gave consent. It ruled that common issues predominated over individual ones, making a class action superior to individual litigation given the scale of the issues and the nature of the claims under the TCPA. Accordingly, the court granted the motion for class certification. The plaintiff in Nightingale, et al. v. National Grid USA Service Co., 107 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. July 9, 2024), initiated a class action against a debt collection company, claiming that repeated calls to collect a debt violated Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff asserted these excessive calls invaded his privacy and deprived him of the use of his phone. In support of his motion for class certification, the plaintiff offered call records maintained by the defendants purporting to show when the defendants called class members, how many times class members were called, and the outcomes of these calls, and arguing that the records could prove a common injury and identify class members. Id. at *4. The district court denied class certification for lack of predominance, holding that the plaintiff would not be able to prove that the alleged privacy violations rose to

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online