Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32For more information, please visit or 27 TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT DEBT COLLECTION FCC Takes a Hard Look at User Agreements. Use of services cannot be conditioned on consumers’ provision of “prior express written consent” to be called. See In the Matter of F.N.B. Corporation, File No. EB- TCD-15-00019627; In the Matter of Lyft, Inc., File No. EB-TCD-15-00019865 (FCC citation and order). Human Touch Defeats TCPA Unsolicited Text Messaging Class Action. Human direction of a prerecorded call or text does not constitute “autodialing” within the meaning of the TCPA. See Derby v. AOL, Inc., Dkt. No. 46, Case No. 15-452 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2015). Eighth Circuit Revives Dismissed TCPA Action. Where multiple messages are involved in a telemarketing campaign, courts will look to the overall purpose of the campaign to determine whether calls were made for the purpose of telemarketing. See Golan et al. v. Veritas Entertainment, L.L.C., et al., Appeal No. 14-2484 (8th Cir. June 8, 2015). In Well-Reasoned Decision, Sixth Circuit Joins Eleventh Circuit on TCPA Prior Express Consent. The Sixth Circuit, relying on guidance from the FCC in 2008, found that a consumer can give consent to be contacted at any time “during the transaction” that involves the debt. This case decision further cements creditors’ rights to call debtors using auto-dialers prior to the FCC’s 2012 rule requiring prior express consent. Eleventh Circuit Declines to Follow the Pack on “No Piggybacking” Rule. In Ewing Industries Corp. v. Bob Wines Nursery Inc., a class action involving alleged violations of the TCPA, the court held that that the pendency of a purported class action does not toll the limitations period for a later action seeking to represent the same class, when the earlier class was denied certification on grounds of inadequate representation. Looking Ahead to 2016 The TCPA has become a favorite with the plaintiff’s bar, as shown by the recent spate of TCPA actions. We ex- pect plaintiffs to continue to test the TCPA’s application to new technology in the coming year. The D.C. Circuit’s opinion on the FCC Order 15-72 likely will come down in 2016 and could dramatically change the landscape of current TCPA actions and deter new TCPA actions. Lenders should be particularly wary of calling wireless numbers going forward, because inad- vertently calling a reassigned wireless number more than once without confirming the prior express written con- sent of the called party is an easy way potentially to run afoul of the TCPA. What to Watch Continued focus from plaintiff’s bar | Impact of appellate decision on FCC 15-72