Troutman Sanders LLP will monitor the Supreme Court’s decision and the resulting impact on the TCPA

[sohanuzzaman56]

FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA since it believed the TCPA’s definition of “unsolicited advertising” was unambiguous. The district court conceded the Hobbs Act grants federal courts of appeals “exclusive jurisdiction” over challenges “to the validity of all final orders of the [FCC].” However, the district court determined that neither party was challenging the validity of the FCC order and thus retained jurisdiction. The district court granted PDR’s motion to dismiss, finding that while the plain meaning of the TCPA prohibits unsolicited faxes with a commercial purpose, it allows for the distribution of information regarding free goods or services.

Carlton & Harris appealed, arguing the Hobbs Act required the district court to defer to the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA and that the district court erred when it held that a fax must contain a commercial aim to be considered an “advertisement.” Carlton & Harris contended the federal courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction over the validity band data of agency orders under the Hobbs Act. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed and held the Hobbs Act limits district courts’ jurisdiction and bars them from interpreting agency orders. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision because it should have deferred to the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA.

The Fourth Circuit denied PDR Network’s request for further review. The Supreme Court granted PDR Network’s petition for a writ of certiorari on November 13, 2018. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the FCC’s legal interpretation of the TCPA. It would not be surprising if the justices’ questioning also touches on the deference and due process issues that will impact TCPA lawsuits, including any legal dispute that turns on statutory orders issued by a federal agency.

The Supreme Court’s decision will provide important guidance to the lower courts as to how much weight to give those prior FCC rules as well as new rules that are expected in the near future.


Print:Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Gabriel Ozel
Gabriel Ozel
Gabriel Ozel is an attorney in the Financial Services Litigation practice, whose practice includes the representation of clients in consumer law, business disputes, and commercial litigation in both federal and state court.

Read more about Gabriel OzelGabriel's Linkedin Profile
Photo of Virginia Bell Flynn
Virginia Bell Flynn
Virginia is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice and specifically within the Financial Services Litigation practice. She represents clients in federal and state court, both at the trial and appellate level in the areas of complex litigation and business disputes…