|
|
CONSUMER NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
|
|
![]() |
Arizona Court Rules Against Unwanted Text Messaging |
||||||
|
By Martin H. Bosworth September 21, 2005
The three-judge panel ruled that Arizona-based Acacia Mortgage Corporation violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 when it sent two unsolicited text messages to local businessman Rodney L. Joffe. The court's ruling stated that text-based short messaging services (SMS) constituted a "call," just as a voice call or "autodialed" message would. Acacia had argued that the TCPA could not have anticipated technological advances such as text messaging or e-mail when it was enacted, and thus did not apply. The judges disagreed, stating in their opinion that, "Congress intended the TCPA to apply to advances in automatic telephone dialing technology and to the use of that technology to disrupt the privacy of residential (and business) telephone subscribers. Protecting the privacy of the home from unwarranted and unrequested intrusions constitutes a significant governmental interest." Joffe filed suit against Acacia in 2001, and was awarded a pretrial judgment which Acacia appealed. Joffe was petitioning the court to grant class action status to his lawsuit at the time of the appeal decision. The case will now return to the trial court. If Acacia appeals the ruling, the case could be taken to the state Supreme Court. Joffe's business ventures have included fighting spam proliferation from direct marketers and establishing ethical guidelines for solicitations. His company, Whitehat Inc., designs marketing structures for companies to advertise without resorting to spam or junk mail. "We make sure companies perform e-mail marketing appropriately and with permission," Joffe told ConsumerAffairs.com. Companies such as Jamster have come under fire from consumers and anti-spam advocates for sending unsolicited e-mails or text messages to unsuspecting phone subscribers, and in some cases charging the subscriber even if they haven't purchased anything from the service. Joffe commented that since the lawsuit was filed, he has received "1 or 2 spams on his cellphone in the past four years. I think they got the hint I was not the right person to be targeting." Asked if the court ruling might set a precedent against companies sending unsolicited text messages or e-mails, Joffe replied, "I sure as hell hope so!" Report Your Experience
|
||||||
Back to the top | |
|||||||
Advertisement
|
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOMEOWNERS & RENTERS Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|