This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection
Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Mathew Hufnus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DoNotPay Inc.

Published: May 13, 2022 | Result Date: Jun. 24, 2021 | Filing Date: Dec. 8, 2020 |

Case number: 3:20-cv-08701-VC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Vince G. Chhabria

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

William Litvak
(Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak LLP)

Ignacio J. Hiraldo
(IJH Law)

Michael L. Eisenband
(Eisenband Law PA)


Defendant

Tonia Maria O. Klausner
(Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati)


Facts

DoNotPay, Inc., the operator of an app which claims to be the first robot lawyer, uses an automatic telephone dialing system to send mass automated marketing text messages to individuals' cellular phone numbers. The platform used by DoNotPay processes phone numbers supplied by consumers while signing up for DoNotPay's services. Matthew Hufnus received text messages from DoNotPay asking Hufnus to sign-up for DoNotPay's services. Hufnus subsequently brought a class action against DoNotPay.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an automatic telephone dialing system to make non-emergency telephone calls to plaintiff's cellular phone without prior express written consent. Plaintiff asserted that at no point did he provide defendant with his express written consent to be contacted by the text messages sent using an automatic telephone dialing system. Plaintiff alleged that defendant's violations were willful or knowing. Plaintiff argued that defendant's platform used a random number generator to determine the order in which to pick from a preproduced list of consumer phone numbers, qualifying it as an autodialer.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed that defendant's text messages took up memory space on plaintiff's cellular phone, caused the depletion of plaintiff's cellular phone battery, and caused additional harm, including invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Plaintiff also claimed that defendant's conduct inconvenienced plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life.

Result

DoNotPay's motion to dismiss was granted. The court found that DoNotPay's platform did not qualify as an autodialer under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.


#138810

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390