Lingo Urges Court to Spare It From Injunction Against N.H. Primary Robocallers

The U.S. District Court for New Hampshire in Concord should reject the League of Women Voters’ motion for a preliminary injunction to block defendants Steve Kramer, broadband provider Lingo Telecom and robocall broadcaster Life Corp. from again sending illegal robocalls to voters in New Hampsire (see 2404290016), said Lingo’s opposition memorandum Friday (docket 1:24-cv-00073).

The league alleges that the defendants sent thousands of AI-generated robocalls two days before the Jan. 23 New Hampshire primary to people they thought were likely Democratic voters, featuring deepfake simulations of President Joe Biden's voice (see 2403150034). The league alleges the robocalls “coercively” stated the falsehood that by participating in the New Hampshire primary, Democrat voters would lose their vote in the November general election. The league’s co-plaintiffs are its New Hampshire chapter and three voters who received robocalls.

Political consultant Kramer created the January robocalls, and as a result, the plaintiffs “devote nearly their entire motion to Kramer’s misdeeds, Kramer’s motivations, and the likelihood that Kramer will act again,” said Lingo’s opposition. “But Lingo is not Kramer,” it said. Lingo is a phone company that didn’t know, and couldn’t have known, “the contents of the calls or any unlawful motivations of the parties that created and placed them,” it said.

Once Lingo learned of the January robocalls it “immediately terminated” Life Corp. as a customer, Lingo’s opposition said. Accordingly, whatever case the plaintiffs may have against Kramer or Life Corp., “they are not entitled to a preliminary injunction against Lingo,” it said.

The plaintiffs fail to show that they are likely to succeed on any of their claims against Lingo, said the opposition. The plaintiffs also can’t establish standing to pursue prospective relief against Lingo “because they do not plausibly allege that Lingo will imminently harm them or that an injunction would redress their harms,” it said. Even if the plaintiffs had standing, they have failed to plausibly allege any claims against Lingo, much less show a likelihood of success on them, as Lingo has already explained in its May 6 motion to dismiss (see 2405070001).

The plaintiffs also fail on the other preliminary-injunction factors as well, said the opposition. “They fail to show irreparable harm that would befall them absent an injunction against Lingo and instead tally up harms that have already occurred and that a preliminary injunction would not solve,” it said.

It would be “inequitable” for the court to enter an injunction against Lingo “based entirely on the acts of Kramer before Kramer has even appeared,” said the opposition. The remedy that the plaintiffs request is “unlawful and ineffectual,” it said. For these reasons, the court should deny the plaintiffs’ motion as to Lingo, it said.