A couple’s “he said, she said” issue could redefine future case law as it relates to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). A judge in Northern Ohio made an interesting decision– while agreeing that a customer, William Hodge, originally consented for his and his wife’s phone to be contacted, the judge ruled the desire for contact ended after Hodge’s wife, Adrena Rodgriguez, waived the revocation of consent on behalf of the couple at a later date and time.
This decision overruled a conclusion by a Second Circuit Court’s holding in regard to Reyes vs. Lincoln Automotive Financial Services, a TCPA case used as a reference point for many similar violations of the now landmark consumer protection legislation. Now known as the Rodriguez vs. Premier Bankcard LLC case, it highlights the quandary the TCPA can pose for many couples. The key takeaway: even if one half of a couple consents, if the other half of a couple waives the revocation of consent, it effectively ends the agreement despite the other half of the couple consenting.
Examining the Couple’s Case Under the TCPA
In this case, the husband, William Hodge, and wife, Adrena Rodriguez, used separate phone numbers under a singular cell phone account in Hodge’s name. Hodge went on to sign up for a credit card with Premier Bankcard, LLC. The card he signed up for was in his name only. As part of this agreement with Premier Bankcard, he agreed to receive autodialed calls, text messages, and prerecorded messages sent directly to his number.
Between 2014 and 2016, Hodge had provided Premier Bankcard, LLC with a number separate from that for his and his wife’s cell phones. He did go on to give them both cell phone numbers and even consented to be contacted via his wife’s phone. His wife, however, did not expressly consent to be contacted whatsoever.
In attempt to notify Hodge of late payments, the company started robocalling Hodge’s cellphone and Rodriguez’s number, as well. Rodriguez called the company and told them to stop calling her in regards to the debt. Days later, Hodge himself told the firm to stop calling both phones, and when they didn’t, he had to request they stop calling for a second time in under a week’s time. When the company called both phones yet again, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The couple decided to take Premier Bankcard, LLC to court under the TCPA.
Complications Under the TCPA
Despite the fact that the contract binded Hodge to an agreement to receive texts, calls, or messages, the judge in the case ruled that just because a contract says so, it doesn’t mean consumers can’t revoke consent for these calls under the TCPA. This is a very critical distinction because it overrules a previous TCPA ruling, Reyes vs Lincoln Automotive Financial Services, which states that signing an agreement overrules revocation of consent. Since Rodriguez first waived the couple’s revocation of consent, it stipulates that her first request should’ve been a signal to the company to stop communication, regardless of whether an agreement was originally signed or not.
The case, while complicated, is important because it defines further details in consumer protection as it relates to the TCPA.
Have Telemarketers Ignored Your Requests to Stop Calls?
If you’ve asked, begged, and practically pleaded for telemarketers to stop calling you and they haven’t, you might be entitled to compensation worth between $500 and $1500 per call or text. The TCPA protects consumers from predatory calling practices on the behalf of companies like Premier Bankcard, LLC, but sometimes, companies still violate the TCPA.
Make the calls stop and get the compensation you deserve. Reach out to the The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi and let our experienced TCPA law team fight and win for you. Call us at 1-844-JIBRAEL or book a free consultation online.