☎️ In Muccio v. Global Motivation, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a class action complaint involving a plaintiff who received five unsolicited marketing text messages in violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because the plaintiff failed to allege that the violations resulted in a concrete injury.

Rather than focusing on the quantitative number of messages the plaintiff received, the court’s decision focused on the qualitative nature of the injury and followed the Eleventh Circuit’s Salcedo v. Hanna decision, which requires a holistic review of factors, including whether:
🔹plaintiff experienced a “financial loss or other pecuniary harm,”
🔹the content of the text messages was “highly offensive,” and
🔹plaintiff’s injury is more than a “bare statutory violation” or “generalized allegations of inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance.”

The lawsuit, subject to an appeal, demonstrates that plaintiffs continue to challenge telemarketing practices. The Eleventh Circuit’s (which includes federal courts in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) embrace of a narrower interpretation of injury when assessing violations of the TCPA and similar state laws is not necessarily the framework elsewhere. We recommend thoroughly reviewing your business’s marketing practices, including analyzing which state laws apply.

💡Does your business engage in telemarketing? Contact Your Ad Attorney, Inc. today to discuss how we can help you comply with the TCPA and state telemarketing laws.