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
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.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390