Akin Gump Asking to Limit Junk Fax Liability Gets Some Support

Akin Gump got some support in seeking FCC clarity on fax “sender” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, so it's harder to sue companies whose products are unknowingly hawked in junk faxes (see 1903070051). Comments were posted through Tuesday in dockets including 02-278. Educational Testing Service noted "federal courts have divided over how to apply the TCPA and the Commission’s regulations" here. "Why would Congress or this Commission impose liability on someone who had nothing to do with sending an allegedly unlawful fax?" asked the educational test developer. "What sense could there be in stringing companies up for massive statutory damages when, as everyone acknowledges, they did not send the fax (or cause it to be sent) in any ordinary sense of those terms?" AmeriFactors Financial supported much of the law firm's petition, with the company raising more fax scenarios where the FCC ought to not find one liable for violating the TCPA. RingCentral agrees with the petition that the agency should say “sender” doesn't include entities that merely dispatch others’ faxes but only those that compose the fax or choose recipients. That would ensure "TCPA continues to protect injured consumers by holding accountable the bad actors who initiate unsolicited" ads, commented the provider of virtual fax and other communications services. Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, New York, which litigated a TCPA case against the FCC, asked, along with Roger Kaye MD PC and a few others that Akin's request be denied. They supported a definition/test backed by Cin-Q Automobiles. The Edelman Combs law firm that represents consumers who got unsolicited junk faxes opposed the petition: "Akin Gump has failed to identify any ambiguity in the 2006 Junk Fax Order that necessitates clarification."