No. The judge decided the woman couldn't sue because she wasn't actually harmed in the way the law is meant to protect people. The law against unwanted robocalls exists to protect your privacy from annoying calls you don't want. But this woman *wanted* the calls; that was her whole business plan. Since the calls weren't a 'nuisance' to her, her privacy wasn't invaded. The money she spent on the phones wasn't a real injury either; it was a start-up cost for her lawsuit business. Because she wasn't truly harmed, the court said she had no right to sue.

No, Stoops can't sue in this case. The law she's using was made to protect people from annoying calls they don't want. But Stoops actually wanted these calls so she could make money from lawsuits. She wasn't bothered by the calls like the law was meant to protect against. Also, she spent money on phones hoping to get calls to sue about, which isn't the kind of problem this law was meant to fix. The law wasn't created to help people make a business out of suing for unwanted calls. Because Stoops wasn't really harmed in the way the law was meant to prevent, she can't use this law to sue the bank.

No. A plaintiff who manufactures a TCPA claim by purchasing phone lines with the exclusive intent to solicit calls for litigation purposes does not suffer a legally cognizable injury and therefore lacks both constitutional and prudential standing. To establish constitutional (Article III) standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate an 'injury-in-fact' that is both concrete and particularized. Stoops failed to meet this requirement because her privacy interests were not violated; she wanted to receive the calls, which contradicts the TCPA's purpose of protecting consumers from the 'nuisance and an invasion of privacy' of unwanted calls. Furthermore, she suffered no economic injury because the money spent on phones and minutes was a self-inflicted cost to manufacture standing, not a harm caused by the defendant's conduct. Even if she had constitutional standing, she lacks prudential standing because her interests do not fall within the 'zone of interests' the TCPA was designed to protect. Congress intended to shield consumers from intrusive, unwanted calls, not to create a business opportunity for individuals who actively seek out such calls to generate litigation.

No. Stoops does not have standing to bring a TCPA claim because she has not suffered an injury-in-fact and her interests do not fall within the zone of interests protected by the TCPA. The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from unwanted, intrusive calls that invade their privacy. Because Stoops purchased the cell phones for the sole purpose of receiving calls to file lawsuits, she did not suffer the type of privacy invasion the TCPA was meant to prevent. Her privacy interests were not violated when she received calls from Wells Fargo. Additionally, Stoops cannot claim an economic injury, as she purposefully incurred costs by purchasing phones and minutes with the hope of receiving calls to sue over. This manufactured cost does not constitute an injury-in-fact. Furthermore, Stoops' interests are not within the zone of interests the TCPA was designed to protect. Her goal of profiting from TCPA lawsuits is inconsistent with the TCPA's purpose of protecting consumers from unwanted calls. Congress did not intend the TCPA to be used as a business opportunity for manufactured lawsuits. Because Stoops lacks both constitutional and prudential standing, her TCPA claim against Wells Fargo must be dismissed.

Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot