If you don't like getting unsolicited text messages, the Eleventh Circuit just invited you to federal court. In a unanimous, en banc decision, the Court held that receiving a single, unwanted illegal text message gives rise to Article III standing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The opinion, authored by Judge Rosenbaum, noted that, when an intangible harm like receiving an unwanted text message is at issue, courts must ask whether that harm has a "close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts." The Court stressed that the "close relationship" inquiry must focus on whether the harm is similar "in kind"--not "in degree"--to the harm caused by the "traditional" cause of action.
The Court landed on the harm caused by the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, holding the tort caused harm that was similar "in kind" to receiving an unwanted text.
Always notable when all the circuit judges agree on something.
Drazen v. Godaddy.com, LLC, No. 21-10199 (11th Cir. July 24, 2023) (en Banc) by John Byrne on Scribd
2 comments:
Judge Rosenbaum’s writing is great but this is a ridiculously bad decision. At least Judge Lagoa didn’t participate so maybe there is a sliver of hope somewhere.
It’s a reasonable man standard. One would hope a reasonable person would take the half second to hit delete as to the one errant text message and get busy living. Or like all these 11th Circuit judges they can—as Morgan Freeman says in Shawshank Redemption—get busy dying. One errant text message is a concrete injury?? Wow.
Ridiculously bad decision, 1:43 PM? I mean, every single federal appeals court that has considered the question whether one text message is sufficient for Article III standing disagrees with you (the only exception being a 2019 Eleventh Circuit decision, which is now bad law). You may be right that a "reasonable person" may not care about one "errant" text message. But no "reasonable man standard" governs standing, and, as all these courts have emphasized, the *degree* of the harm is not the relevant inquiry.
Post a Comment