Unsolicited Text Messages and the TCPA (and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act)
I have a pair of posts at Professor Goldman's blog on unsolicited text messages, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Last week, a federal court in Minnesota held that the transmission of unsolicited text messages does not constitute a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Czech v. Wall Street on Demand, Inc.). The court recognized that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a statute designed to combat hacking, and that plaintiff's allegations that it repeatedly received unwanted text messages do not make out a claim - based on the extraction of information, transmission of harmful code, or access (without authorization) - under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
This week, a federal court in Illinois (Abbas v. Selling Source, LLC) held that the transmission of unsolicited text messages could violate the Telephone Consumer Protection act, because unwanted SMS messages constituted "calls" under the TCPA. Interestingly, defendant raised a First Amendment defense, which the court rejected.
Both cases are worth reading.
Last week, a federal court in Minnesota held that the transmission of unsolicited text messages does not constitute a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Czech v. Wall Street on Demand, Inc.). The court recognized that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a statute designed to combat hacking, and that plaintiff's allegations that it repeatedly received unwanted text messages do not make out a claim - based on the extraction of information, transmission of harmful code, or access (without authorization) - under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
This week, a federal court in Illinois (Abbas v. Selling Source, LLC) held that the transmission of unsolicited text messages could violate the Telephone Consumer Protection act, because unwanted SMS messages constituted "calls" under the TCPA. Interestingly, defendant raised a First Amendment defense, which the court rejected.
Both cases are worth reading.
Comments