Thanks to Marks v. Crunch Fitness, whenever we see a case that references an ATDS, we collectively freeze. Luckily, this case doesn’t even touch the legal definition of an ATDS. Instead, the perceived “loss” for this agency was due to a lack of evidentiary support when filing for summary judgment. Here’s what happened in Camayd v. United Auto Credit Corp.
- After a lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of Florida, the Defendant’s Director of Servicing filed for summary judgment.
- He based the argument on use of software that was a “human-initiated service and outbound dialing system.”
- According to the Director of Servicing’s statement, the dialing system required that the agent “manually input phone numbers into a dialing system and click a button to launch the call.”
- Courts routinely hold that these types of dialing systems are compliant, according to TCPAland.
- This court, however, wasn’t going to let anything get past them. They were skeptical of the validity of the statement provided, as well as the authenticity of the statements made by the Director of Servicing, who did not work for the dialing platform.
- Due to the unconvincing nature of the statement, the court was compelled to dissect other cases involving the dialing platform, some of which were found to be non-compliant.
- Despite the fact that the dialing platform was, in many cases, found to be compliant, a lack of research and evidence led the case to be denied summary judgement.
It’s a harsh world out there. Remember that even if your software is compliant, you should take lawsuits seriously and address them comprehensively. We spoke with a lawyer about what to do when you get a lawsuit, and she shared exactly what the best progression is to take – click here for the interview.