Quest Diagnostics Lawsuit Alleging Violation of Autodialer Laws Survives Dismissal

An unsolicited phone call lawsuit alleging the violation of autodialer laws is moving forward after a federal judge rejected Quest Diagnostics’ motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff Judy W. filed the TCPA class action lawsuit in July 2018 after named defendant Quest Diagnostics allegedly placed unsolicited calls to her cell phone, attempting to collect a debt that was owed by another party.

The robocall lawsuit states that when Judy received the calls from Quest Diagnostics that there was a brief pause before an actual person came on to the line, which she has reason to believe indicated the use of an “auto-dialer,” which is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA.

Lawsuit: Autodialer Laws Violated by Quest Diagnostics

According to the TCPA lawsuit, Quest Diagnostics placed a number of calls earlier this year without her consent—which under existing autodialer laws, means “express written consent.”

The Quest Diagnostics lawsuit states that at on at least one occasion, she “heard a momentary pause before someone started speaking to her.”

This, the robocall lawsuit says, is a clear indication that a predictive dialer, or “auto-dialer,” was being used. This type of equipment stores, and in some cases, generates telephone numbers randomly or sequentially without any input from a human programmer.

The TCPA class action lawsuit states that Judy specifically requested that Quest Diagnostics stop calling her. Nonetheless, the calls continued. As evidence, the autodialer lawsuit lists several specific, documented instances of unsolicited calls from the same number.

In September, Quest Diagnostics filed a motion for dismissal of the lawsuit. Quest Diagnostics claimed that Judy had failed to prove that the alleged calls to her cell phone had been made with an auto-dialer (also known as an ATDS), and therefore, it did not violate autodialer laws.

U.S. District Judge William Martini disagreed. In a six-page ruling released on Dec. 17, 2018, he wrote: “Dead air after answering the phone is indicative that the caller used a predictive dialer.” Judge Martini also upheld Judy’s assertion that “Quest had called her to ‘to collect a debt owed by someone other than the plaintiff.’ Thus, it is plausible that Quest used a predictive dialer.”

Judge Martini also noted that previous court findings consider a predictive dialer to be the same as an ATDS under existing autodialer laws.

FCC & Autodialer Laws

In 2003, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled that any equipment “that dials numbers and, when certain computer software is attached . . . assists telemarketers in predicting when a sales agent will be available” is by legal definition an autodialer under the TCPA.

This ruling has been upheld numerous times since. The 2003 order specifically defines an auto-dialer as any machine that has “the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.”

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was passed in 1991 as commercial use of automatic dialing technology was increasing. These autodialer laws and statutes governing sales and solicitation calls by business entities were enacted in response to the growing number of complaints from consumers. Under the TCPA, those found liable for violating autodialer laws can be fined up to $1500 per incident.

The Autodialer Laws Class Action Lawsuit against Quest Diagnostics is Case No. 2:18-cv-11960-WJM-MF, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The TCA AMCA Data Breach Investigation is now open! If you were a patient at LabCorp, Quest, or another lab, and received notice that you were affected, submit your information here.

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