Susan Drazen v. Mr. Juan Pinto
11th Cir. (en banc) (July 24, 2023) (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The receipt of a single, unsolicited text message in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) constitutes a concrete injury-in-fact for Article III standing. This is because the harm is of a similar kind, though not necessarily degree, to the harm underlying the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion.
Facts:
- Between November 2014 and December 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC (GoDaddy) conducted a telemarketing campaign.
- GoDaddy used an automatic telephone dialing system to send promotional calls and text messages to current and former customers.
- These communications were intended to sell additional or more expensive services and products.
- Susan Drazen, Jason Bennett, John Herrick, and approximately 1.26 million other individuals received these calls or text messages on their cellular phones.
- A subset of the group, approximately 91,000 individuals, received only a single unwanted text message from GoDaddy.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Drazen filed a putative class action against GoDaddy in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, alleging violations of the TCPA.
- Drazen's case was consolidated with two similar cases filed in the District of Arizona.
- The parties reached a nationwide settlement agreement and filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval.
- The district court, citing Salcedo v. Hanna, questioned its jurisdiction over class members who received only one text but ultimately approved the settlement after the parties removed a named plaintiff who only received one text.
- Juan Enrique Pinto, a class member, objected to the attorney's fee award and final approval of the settlement.
- The district court overruled Pinto's objections and granted final approval of the class action settlement.
- Pinto (Movant-Appellant) appealed the district court's final approval order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's approval of the settlement, holding that under Salcedo, class members who received only a single text message lacked Article III standing.
- Drazen (Plaintiff-Appellee) successfully petitioned for a rehearing en banc by the full Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the receipt of a single, unsolicited telemarketing text message in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) constitute a concrete injury sufficient to establish Article III standing?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosenbaum, J.
Yes, the receipt of a single unwanted text message constitutes a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing. The court held that the statutory harm created by the TCPA for receiving an unsolicited text message shares a close relationship with the harm traditionally associated with the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The analysis focuses on whether the harms are similar in kind, not degree. While a single text message might not meet the common law's 'highly offensive' standard for intrusion upon seclusion, the unwanted intrusion into a person's peace and quiet is the same kind of harm. The court reasoned that Congress has the constitutional power to elevate a concrete, de facto injury that was previously inadequate in law to the status of a legally cognizable injury, effectively lowering the quantum of harm required to bring a claim.
Concurring - Jordan and Newsom, JJ.
Yes. The concurring judges, while noting their previous criticisms of the Supreme Court's and the Eleventh Circuit's standing jurisprudence, stated they were pleased to concur in the majority's 'excellent opinion' for the en banc court.
Concurring - Branch, J.
Yes. The concurrence fully agrees with the majority opinion, noting that it faithfully applies recent Supreme Court guidance from TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which clarified that a 'close historical or common-law analogue' for a plaintiff's injury need not be an 'exact duplicate.' This approach aligns with the court's recent en banc decision in Hunstein.
Analysis:
This en banc decision explicitly overrules prior Eleventh Circuit precedent, specifically Salcedo v. Hanna, which held that a single unwanted text message was not a concrete injury. By adopting the 'kind, not degree' analysis, the court aligns itself with the majority of other federal circuits that have addressed this issue. This ruling significantly lowers the threshold for standing in TCPA cases within the Eleventh Circuit, making it easier for class action lawsuits to proceed even when some class members have suffered minimal contact, such as a single text or call.
