Author: Eric Troutman

Eric Troutman

Eric is one of the country’s prominent Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) defense attorneys, having served as lead defense counsel on over 30 nationwide TCPA class actions and having handled hundreds of individual TCPA cases. He also “wrote the book” on TCPA defense, having co-authored the nation’s first comprehensive practice guide on the subject. In addition, he has helped spearhead the banking industry’s push for TCPA clarity before the Federal Communications Commission and has assisted on numerous appeals addressing hot-button TCPA issues.

View Full Bio on Dorsey

Court Issues Epic Smackdown to Professional TCPA Plaintiff Seeking to Sue PACER In Forma Pauperis

If the TCPA has a “rock bottom,” we may have just hit it. As recently explained by Judge Cynthia Bashant of the Southern District of California: “Roy Tuck and his wife Deborah Tuck, together with their son Richard Caruso and mother-in-law Clarice Tuck, appear to have developed a cottage industry suing their creditors for violations of the TCPA, the FDCPA and the FCRA. In each case, the parties request to proceed [in forma pauperis], listing liabilities that far exceed assets. Curiously, however, despite the fact that they have received settlements from approximately a dozen different defendants, their assets and cash in their bank accounts remained unchanged.”

Do Constitutional Protections Allow for the Reduction of TCPA Statutory Damage Awards? A Closer Look at Golan

Sometimes the toughest job a court faces is finding a way to do the right thing. When it comes to the crushing damages afforded by statute for violations of the TCPA, the “right” thing is often to reduce the award to something that loosely resembles the harm caused by the illegal conduct. But does the U.S. Constitution really afford an avenue to reduce damages to a prevailing plaintiff based upon due process or other concerns?

Court Finds that Revocation of TCPA Consent Is Debt Specific, Sanity Follows

It is a scenario that our clients commonly face: when calling a customer to discuss a specific delinquency on a specific account, the customer says “stop calling me.” But what if the customer has multiple accounts or even debts related to multiple product lines with the caller? Is the caller to cease all effort to contact the customer on all accounts, no matter how diverse and for any reason whatsoever? Or is the caller only required to stop calling regarding this specific delinquency and on this specific account? Or is it something in-between?

$283MM in Telemarketing Penalties: The Top 10 Things You Need to Know About the Big Dish Ruling This Week

On the heels of a crushing $60MM civil judgment in North Carolina two weeks ago, Dish was hit with a staggering $283MM in penalties in an epic ruling by Judge Sue E. Myserscough of the Central District of Illinois this week. The opinion offers a rare inside look at the thought process of Dish’s executives and compliance counsel—including the machinations of its executive working groups—as they struggle to comply with the FTC and FCC’s evolving telemarketing regulations.

Browsewrap Disclosure Held Insufficient to Constitute “Prior Express Written Consent” Even for a Healthcare-Related Call

Folks involved with selling health insurance, or anything else for that matter, relying upon browsewrap website terms might want to give Sullivan v. All Web Leads, Inc. a careful read. Although the ruling took place at the pleadings stage, the Court’s approach to a complaint alleging calls made to individuals requesting health care quotes after submitting personal information on a website is important for industry participants to consider.