Protection of "innocent Lawbreakers": Striking the Right Balance in the Private Enforcement of the Anti "junk Fax" Provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

• Publication year: 2021
• Citation: Vol. 90

90 Nebraska L. Rev. 70. Protection of "Innocent Lawbreakers": Striking the Right Balance in the Private Enforcement of the Anti "Junk Fax" Provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Yuri R. Linetsky(fn*)

Protection of "Innocent Lawbreakers": Striking the Right Balance in the Private Enforcement of the Anti "Junk Fax" Provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction.............................................................................................................................72

II. Facsimile Machines, Advertising, and the TCPA.......................................................................................................74
A. Development and Design of Telephone Facsimile Machines .............................................................................................75
B. Development of the Junk Fax Industry.....................................................................................................................76
C. Congress's Solution to the Perceived Problem of Junk Faxes-Passage of the TCPA.................................................... 77
1.Congress's Stated Intent in Passing the TCPA.....................................................................................................78
2. The TCPA's Enforcement Mechanisms ......... .................................................................................................79
i. Public Enforcement...........................................................................................................................................79
ii. Private Right of Action .............................................................................................................................................. 81
3. Congress (Slightly) Amends the TCPA: The Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005................................................................... 83

III. The Costs of Unsolicited Facsimile Advertisements and the TCPA............................................. ........................83
A. Facsimile Machine Technology at the Time TCPA was Enacted and Today ..................................................................... 84
B. Monetary Costs of Receiving Unsolicited Facsimiles .............................................................................................................85
C.Non-Monetary Costs of Receiving Unsolicited Facsimiles .....................................................................................................87
1. Annoyance Factor ................................................................................................................................................87
2. Potentially Deceptive or Highly Valuable Content............................................................................................88

IV. The TCPA's Current Relevance and Unintended Consequences..........................................................................90
A. Empirical Analysis of Recent TCPA Litigation...............................................................................................90
B. Enforcement of the TCPA-Blast Faxers..............................................................................................................92
1. Shutting Down the Major Blast Faxers.....................................................................................................................92
2. State Regulations of Unsolicited Facsimiles.................................................................................................................94

V. The TCPA and Innocent Lawbreakers....................................................................................................94
A. TCPA Cottage Industry ...............................................................................................................................................94
1. Support Infrastructure................................................................................................................................................96
B. Innocent Lawbreakers................................................................................................................................................97
1. What is an Innocent Lawbreaker in Connection with the TCPA? ...........................................................................................98
i. Ignorance of the TCPA's Existence or Misunderstanding of the TCPA's Scope and Prohibitions.....................................98
C. Why the Cottage Industry Targets Innocent Lawbreakers ......................................................................................99
D. Effects of TCPA Litigation on Innocent Lawbreakers ....................................................................................101
1. Threat of Class Actions.................................................................................................................................103
2. Threat of Piggybacking of State Law Consumer Protection Claims.....................................................................................105
3. Threat of Multiple Violations Per Fax ...................................................................................................................106
4. Case Studies ..........................................................................................................................................................108
i. Members of a Chamber of Commerce .......108.
ii. Who Can Give Consent?........................................................................109

VI. Differences Between the TCPA Junk Fax Provisions and Other Federal Consumer Protection Statutes...................110
A. TCPA's Anti Telemarketing Provisions .................................................................................................................................111
B. The CAN-SPAM Act.......................................................................................................................................................112

VII. Evening the Scale ................................................................................................................................................113
A. Requiring that the Plaintiff Prove that the Unsolicited Facsimile was Received Using a Traditional Facsimile Machine ...........................................................................................................................................................114
1. The FCC's Incorrect Interpretation of the Act ..................................................................................................................115
2. The Plain Language and Intended Scope of the TCPA ....................................................................................115
B. Strictly Enforcing Traditional Litigation Requirements ...............................................................................................118
1. Standing ...........................................................................................................................................................118
i. Real Party in Interest ...............................................................................................................................................118
ii. Assignability of TCPA Claims .................................................................................................................................119
2. Knowingly/Willfully....................................................................................................................................................120
C. Applying Traditional Legal Concepts to Limit Punitive Recovery ................................. ..............................................124
1. Mitigation of Damages................................................................................................................................................ 124
2. Due Process ...................................................................................................................................................................... 127
3. Statute of Limitations Issues .................................................................................................................................... 133
4. Remittitur.................................................................................................................................................................. 134
D. Eliminate or Limit Private Enforcement Mechanism...............................................................................................135
E. Limits on Private Enforcement by the States....................................................................................................................136

VIII. Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................................136

VIV. Appendix A............................................................................................................................................................138

I. INTRODUCTION

Should a small business be put at risk of insolvency for sending advertisements by fax to prospective customers? Or have to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to defend itself in court? Or be forced to "pay off a plaintiffs lawyer to avoid litigation? Though the intuitive answer is "no,"...