2nd Defendant in N.H. Robocall Suit Opposes Injunction to Block Repeat Crimes

Life Corp., a defendant in the League of Women Voters’ lawsuit to hold Life and other allegedly bad actors liable for robocalls placed to Democratic voters in the runup to the New Hampshire primary (see 2403150034), opposes the league’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block the defendants from repeating their crimes (see 2404290016), said Life’s objection Friday (docket 1:24-cv-00073) in U.S. District Court for New Hampshire in Concord.

The league alleges that defendants Steve Kramer, broadband provider Lingo Telecom and robocall broadcaster Life sent “thousands of 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. The league alleges the robocalls “coercively” and wrongly stated that by participating in the New Hampshire primary, Democratic 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 the robocalls.

The plaintiffs seek to impose “a sweeping, unworkable, and unjustified preliminary injunction,” said Life’s objection. It would require Life “to review in detail every message for which it leases its dialing equipment,” it said. That’s a requirement that’s “inconsistent with its established business model and would severely restrict Life’s ability to conduct business,” it said. Life’s platform allows its customers to disseminate polling, fundraising, get-out-the vote and other election-related communications, it said. There’s “no justification” for the injunctive relief, it said.

Life follows Lingo as the second defendant to oppose the injunction (see 2405200001). Political consultant Kramer is the only defendant who hasn’t yet been heard from. The plaintiffs indicated last month they had trouble serving Kramer with the complaint because he was out of the country (see 2404250033).

The plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction is “particularly unfounded given that Life is not responsible” for initiating the Jan. 21 robocall that’s the subject of the complaint, said Life’s objection. The plaintiffs’ own complaint “makes clear” that defendant Kramer “is entirely responsible for planning, creating, and sending out” the subject robocall, it said. Lingo argued very much the same when it urged the court to spare it from the injunction.

The court should deny the injunction because the plaintiffs “have failed to come forward with evidence to sustain the substantial burden required to obtain injunctive relief,” said Life’s objection. The plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims against Life, it said. That’s because they have failed to identify “an actual, concrete injury sufficient to confer standing,” or to articulate how Life “could be liable under the Voting Rights Act,” it said. They also have no claim under either the Telephone Consumer Protection Act or New Hampshire election laws, it said.

The plaintiffs also haven’t shown a risk of irreparable harm where Life didn’t make the subject robocall and is no longer working with defendant Kramer, said Life’s objection. The balance of equities weighs clearly in Life’s favor, it said. The plaintiffs’ proposed injunction would harm the public interest rather than further it, because the preliminary injunction “would actually inhibit the distribution of important information regarding upcoming elections,” it said.