The case revolved around a fax sent by pulse, a health care bulk sms ireland analytics company, inviting recipients to attend a free webinar on behavioral health coding. Family health physical medicine alleged that this fax violated the tcpa as an unsolicited advertisement, despite not explicitly offering any goods or services for sale. In a decision that expands the scope of tcpa liability, the fourth circuit held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged the fax was an advertisement under two theories. Family health physical med., llc v. Pulse, llc, no. -, - th cir. .Continue reading“fourth circuit broadens tcpa’s reach over ‘unsolicited advertisements’”emaillinkedintwitterfacebooksharejuly , written by: william a.
Wright and bridgette c. Lehmancategory: faxes, healthcare, telemarketingtcpa boundaries drawn: marketing text messages to known telephone numbers permittedin marina soliman v. Subway franchisee advertising fund trust, ltd. F.Th , the second circuit addressed critical questions regarding the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” atds and whether text messages fall under the tcpa’s prohibition against the use of an “artificial or prerecorded voice.”marina soliman brought a putative class action against subway, alleging that the company had violated the tcpa by sending her automated marketing text messages after she had opted out of receiving them.
