Bradford’s robocalls to people in his district are not covered by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal court has ruled. (Stock photo/getty)
A Montgomery County lawyer who made a career of suing telemarketers has lost a lawsuit seeking damages from Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Matt Bradford over the earlier recordings.
Bradford’s robocalls to people in his district are not covered by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in an opinion Monday. This is because calls are a legitimate function of the state legislator’s office to benefit the public.
In a unanimous decision, U.S. District Judges L. Felipe Restrepo, Anthony J. Scirica and Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves noted that the U.S. constitutional structure was designed to keep the federal government out of state affairs.
“We thus hesitate whether Congress would go so far as to keep state legislators from communicating with their constituents,” Scirica’s opinion says. He noted that the justices’ doubts were heightened by the fact that the messages were reviewed by State House staff and concluded that they “have a clear legislative purpose and [serve the] public benefit. ”
The calls from Bradford’s office included an information session on state government health insurance, government resources available during the Covid-19 pandemic, an announcement about government employment opportunities, a voter document shredding event and a family fair at the local zoo, according to the opinion.
“Such communications related to people’s health, safety and general well-being clearly serve the ‘public good’ — as opposed to any personal matter or re-election campaign,” the opinion said.
Andrew Perrong, the Glenside attorney who filed the lawsuit, said he disagrees with the decision and is considering his options for seeking reconsideration. Bradford appealed a federal District Court judge’s decision in Perrong’s favor that robocalls from lawmakers are prohibited unless they are for an emergency.
Get our best stories in your inbox every morning. Subscribe now to the Pennsylvania Capital Star’s morning guide.
A recent law school graduate, Perrong, 28, said he has been suing telemarketers and scammers since 2015, before he had formal legal training. Named “Robocall Warrior” in 2018 Philadelphia Inquirer ProfilePerrong’s Practice Page The practice promotes collective settlements totaling over $9 million.
Bradford’s attorney, Karl Myers, said they are pleased with the decision because it will support ensure voters are able to learn about services they may find beneficial.
“This is consistent with what we have understood all along: that the TCPA was intended to end harassment and fraudulent commercial robocalls, not calls from state legislators offering programs to benefit the public,” Myers said in a statement.
The House and Senate Republican and Democratic caucuses filed Amicus briefs supporting Bradford’s arguments that public officials are not included in the meaning of “person” under the law.
The TCPA, first passed by Congress in 1991, gives the Federal Communications Commission the authority to regulate the apply of telephones, fax machines and text messages to protect consumers from harassment, illegal, illegal and unwanted communications.
The bill includes private remedies for consumers, allowing them to collect damages of $500 per violation and triple damages of $1,500 for willful and known violations, according to the opinion.
Bradford’s calls, which were pre-recorded and made using an autodialer, were typical of those used by lawmakers to contact constituents using resources provided for operations and spending in their districts.
To provide such connections, a representative or senator’s office must submit a request to their caucus’ communications office, where the submission is reviewed to ensure it has a legislative purpose. If the communications office determines no, the application is denied, the opinion says.
Sciric’s opinion notes that House Bar rules lawmakers’ apply of mass communications within 60 days of the election, although the momentary rule makes an exception for news related to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Perrong said he aims to combat robocalls because of the harassment and disruption they cause to everyday life. As a student at La Salle College High School, Perrong said the marketing calls were so habitual that they interrupted his studies.
His lawsuits target telemarketing companies and vast corporations that conduct their own telemarketing, but he also sued the Montgomery County Democratic Committee. This lawsuit also failed as a result of a technical difference in the way the committee’s calls were filed.
Citing data compiled by privacy app YouAmail, Perrong noted that consumers receive billions of robocalls every month.
“It’s a problem that’s not going away, and in fact it’s getting worse,” he said.
While he acknowledged there is a difference between spam calls and the stock services lawmakers apply, Perrong said he was focused on what he described as the “pervasive harm” of pre-recorded calls.
“The medium is what Congress designed the TCPA to protect,” he said.
