No. 19-413
Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C. v. Optum, Inc., et al.
Response Waived
Tags: advertisement circuit-split commercial-communication commercial-fax fax-advertisement fcc-interpretation legislative-history statutory-interpretation tcpa telecommunications-law telephone-consumer-protection-act-tcpa
Key Terms:
Privacy
Privacy
Latest Conference:
2019-11-22
Question Presented (from Petition)
Did the Third Circuit err by holding that a commercial fax cannot be an "advertisement" as defined by the TCPA unless it promotes a direct sale of the sender's goods or services to the recipient where the Sixth Circuit held the opposite in Matthew N. Fulton, DDS, P.C. v. Enclarity, Inc., 907 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 2018), reh'g denied, 2018 U.S. App LEXIS 36638 (Dec. 27, 2018), pet. for cert. filed, Enclarity Inc. v. Matthew N. Fulton DDS, P.C., No. 18-1258 (U.S. March 27, 2019).
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Third Circuit err by holding that a commercial fax cannot be an 'advertisement' as defined by the TCPA unless it promotes a direct sale of the sender's goods or services to the recipient
Docket Entries
2019-11-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-11-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2019.
2019-10-24
Waiver of right of respondents Optum, Inc., et al. to respond filed.
2019-09-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 28, 2019)
Attorneys
Optum, Inc., et al.
Jessica Lynn Ellsworth — Hogan Lovells US, LLP, Respondent
Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C.
Phillip A. Bock — Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Petitioner