Frontier Communications TCPA Class Action Moves Forward

An illegal telemarketing class action lawsuit against Frontier Communications Corp. will move forward despite the telecommunications company’s offer to settle the case with the lead plaintiff.

A federal judge ruled that Frontier’s offer to settle lead plaintiff Diana M.’s TCPA lawsuit, filed in August 2013, for $6,400 – which she declined – did not constitute a judgment, but was instead a settlement offer.

In her TCPA class action lawsuit, Diana alleged that she received two calls on her cell phone from Frontier using an automatic dialing system. The calls were made even though Diana’s cell phone number was registered in the National Do Not Call Registry, a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Frontier’s usage of an automated dialing system represents another violation of the TCPA, according to Diana’s illegal telemarketing lawsuit. The first call to her cellphone from Frontier Communications allegedly occurred on July 3, 2013, and the second on July 23, 2013.

Frontier allegedly initiated the calls using an auto-dialer — or a prerecorded voice. Diana seeks to represent a Class of similar individuals in the United States who received cell phone calls from Frontier via an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS), or robocall system, and from whom Frontier “does not have evidence of prior express consent.”

She is asking for injunctive relief and statutory damages of $500 for each negligent violation of the TCPA and $1,500 for each “knowing violation.”

In October 2013, Frontier reportedly offered to settle Diana’s claims for payment of $6,400 plus taxable costs and prospective injunctive relief that would bar it from making telemarketing calls to her or from “placing any call using an ATDS, artificial voice or prerecorded message,” unless Diana consented in writing to such calls.

Diana declined the settlement offer. Frontier argued that by declining the offer, Diana’s individual claim and all potential Class claims were moot. Frontier then asked the court to dismiss the TCPA lawsuit “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that its unaccepted offer of ‘more than [Diana] could possibly recover even if she were to prevail’ made the case moot and deprived the Court of jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution.”

Each violation of the TCPA carries up to a $500 fine, while each cell phone user who proves an intentional violation can sue for up to $1,500 for each unlawful message.

The law, enacted in 1991, prohibits solicitations to residences before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. Solicitors are required to provide their name as well as the name of the company they are calling for, in addition to a telephone number or address where the company can be contacted. Solicitors must also maintain a company-specific do-not-call list, which is to be honored for five years.

Under the TCPA, using autodialing equipment to send calls to wireless phones without the prior consent of the cellphone user is prohibited. Text messages are considered under the law as the equivalent of telephone calls.

Join a Free TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an unsolicited text message (text spam) or prerecorded voice message (robocall), you may be eligible for compensation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now