Featured Video Play Icon

Cases in Point: Defendant Faces the “Fax”

TCPA Compliance of Faxing – One Court’s Interpretation

In Matthew N. Fulton, D.D.S., P.C. v. Enclarity, Inc., we gain the Sixth Circuit’s understanding of how a fax was considered an “unsolicited advertisement.”

  • Defendant (an insurance company) sent a fax to a dentist office to verify logistical information (such as address, phone number, etc.) in order to maintain an accurate database of providers
  • Defendant was in turn sued for sending an “unsolicited advertisement”
  • A district court dismissed the suit – the fax “lacked the commercial components inherent in ads,” they said
  • The Sixth District disagreed on the premise of one phrase in particular:  “faxes that serve as pretext for a commercial solicitation.”
  • This phrase is pulled directly from the TCPA’s definition of an unsolicited advertisement
  • Serves as a reminder how careful businesses need to be
  • Even if the content of a message seems informational, it may still be considered a “pretext”

Looking for more information about how to stay compliant? Learn more about the TRACED Act or find out the compliance of a certain text messing platform.

Emily Faracca

Emily is the content creator at Arbeit. She is an aspiring gardener, enjoys bike rides through her neighborhood, and is a big fan of a good cocktail. As much as she loves her hometown of Buffalo, N.Y., she absolutely loves to travel, and at the top of her bucket list is a trip to Sicily, where she still has living relatives.

Leave Comment