Misc. California Decisions re: Phone and Texting Solicitations, and RedBox Data Collection
by
Stephen M Stern on Jan. 05, 2016
Consumer Rights Consumer Protection Business
Summary: Misc. California Decisions re: Phone and Texting Solicitations, and RedBox Data Collection
Overzealous Phone Solicitations
A California Court of Appeals ruled that individuals can file a claim for invasion of privacy stemming from excessive phone calls. In Masuda v. Citibank, N.A. (N.D. Cal), the court reasoned that bank’s 300 calls to recipients cell phone, which took place almost daily over a seventh-month period may have a cause of action for invasion of privacy by intrusion.
Text Message Solicitation
In Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC (S.D. Cal), the Court decided that the defendant (a gym) did not violate The Telephone Consumer Protection Act regarding text solicitation because the recipient had consented to the texts because he provided his phone number on a membership application.
Redbox was allowed to collect data information in the form of a zip codes because of a rental deposit exemption found in California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. In Sinibaldi v. RedBox Automated Retail, LLC (CA.9 (Cal.), the information used by RedBox to pull the zip code information was used for the purpose of securing a deposit for payment.
