District Court says sellers may be vicariously liable for third-party TCPA violations

Courts TCPA Third-Party

On December 5, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington denied an online retail pharmacy’s (defendant) motion for summary judgment in a TCPA suit. According to the order, the defendant engaged with a third party to call potential customers and transfer leads who were interested in the defendant’s services to its inbound call center. The order further noted that the third party contracted with another company to generate leads. Like the third party, the company did not make any calls but contracted with one or more vendors to place calls. The plaintiff received two calls from a prerecorded message that introduced itself as a person with the company. After asking the plaintiff if anyone in the household used prescription medications, among other things, he was transferred to an employee of the defendant who identified the defendant company by name and tried to sell the plaintiff their services. The plaintiff sued the defendant, arguing that it was “vicariously liable” for calls he received from a telemarketer that transferred the calls to the defendant’s sales representative. The defendant argued it was not directly liable under the TCPA because it did not directly place the calls to the plaintiff. The defendant also said it was not vicariously liable for calls placed by vendors because those vendors did not have express or implied actual authority to place calls for the defendant.

According to the district court, courts may hold sellers such as the defendant vicariously liable for TCPA violations of third-party callers “where the plaintiff establishes an agency relationship, as defined by federal common law, between the defendant and the third-party caller.” The court further wrote that labeling the contracted company “an independent contractor in the agreement with [the defendant] does not foreclose a finding that an agency relationship existed.” The district court also noted that there was a “genuine issue” of material fact as to whether the defendant had an agency relationship with the contracted company’s vendor.