The class action suit dealt with unsolicited text messages sent from the Campbell-Ewald Company that allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act [text].
Advertisement
In the first case, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read the opinion of the Court handing a major blow to critics trying to circumvent lawsuits in class-action cases.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday handed a defeat to businesses, ruling that they can not stop a class-action lawsuit by offering to pay the full amount sought by the original plaintiff. “Do it in the Navy”.
Campbell’s subcontractor, Mindmatics LLC, generated a list of cellular phone numbers for consenting 18- to 24-year-olds and then sent messages to over 100,000 recipients, including Gomez, who at 40 years old, argued that he was not in the company’s target demographic and had not consented to receiving messages.
The Campbell-Ewald Company did not deposit the money it offered Jose Gomez, the named plaintiff in the TCPA class action, in a bank account for Gomez. R. Civ. P. 68 is capable of mooting the plaintiff’s individual (and putative class) claims as “wrong, wrong, and wrong again”, id. at 1533 (Kagan, J., dissenting) – a position that every Court of Appeals to rule on the issue after Genesis Healthcare had adopted – and on January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court made it official. “Having rejected Campbell’s settlement bid, and given Campbell’scontinuing denial of liability, Gomez gained no entitlement to the relief Campbell previously offered”. There’s no question, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissent, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, that the multimillion-dollar advertising company had the money to pay Gomez $1,500 per errant text (especially because it turned out he had only received one). After he declined, the company moved to dismiss the suit, arguing there was no dispute for courts to resolve since the plaintiff had been offered the maximum he could recover through litigation. Absent Gomez’s acceptance, Campbell’s settlement offer remained only a proposal, binding neither Campbell nor Gomez. The court of appeals also vacated the district court’s sovereign immunity ruling. He wrote separately that the court misarticulated why “an offer of complete relief on a claim does not render that claim moot”. The court has repeatedly issues decisions that have disfavored class actions, siding on behalf of class action reform and business rather than consumers, Bartholomew says.
Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring separately, disagrees with both sides’ approach. And although vigorously disputing the majority’s holding, the Chief Justice went on to note that “this case is limited to its facts”, and that while the majority holds that “an offer of complete relief is insufficient to moot a case”, it “does not say that payment of complete relief leads to the same result”.
Advertisement
But there’s a catch – and it could end up undermining the class action bar’s victory. Ms. Ginsburg, however, said the court wasn’t deciding whether that step would be sufficient. “The majority holds that an offer of complete relief is insufficient to moot a case”, he wrote.
