Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 145 posts

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#111

Post by thathndude »

tptacek wrote: post #100
thathndude wrote: post #31

Lawyer here. I do this kind of work for a client. Good for this guy for taking the fight to the spammers. As we head into election season, a lot of us are going to get unsolicited text messages like this. You too can sue for them! Some of what was said in the tweets regarding your rights and what you have to do to file a claim are, in my experience and opinion, not correct. The general idea is right, but some of the…

Campaign calls and texts are explicitly exempt from the Do Not Call registry, as they must be.

But they cant use automated means. That’s what allows them to blast out texts and calls with a pre-recorded voice.

Generally, there are two subcategories of TCPA claims: DNC (227(c)) and ATDS/prerecorded voice (227(b)). The latter claims are still available against politicians, last I checked. The latter claims regulate the technology that allows blast calls and messaging with pre-recorded messages.

not legal advice

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#112

Post by thathndude »

hash872 wrote: post #6

I would love to do this, but the few times that I've tried to look up the company, there's no real evidence as to who it is. And I'm fairly sophisticated at that kind of research, I know most of the tricks- however, these companies do successfully hide their identity. I did, one time, find the likely CEO of one of these companies, and I called his cell phone late on a Friday night to mess with him. However, I didn't…

This brings up an interesting point about the TCPA. Individual employees and owners can be personally liable, not just their companies. It’s a vicious angle to TCPA litigation.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#113

Post by raldi »

game-of-throws wrote: post #49
thathndude wrote: post #31

Lawyer here. I do this kind of work for a client. Good for this guy for taking the fight to the spammers. As we head into election season, a lot of us are going to get unsolicited text messages like this. You too can sue for them! Some of what was said in the tweets regarding your rights and what you have to do to file a claim are, in my experience and opinion, not correct. The general idea is right, but some of the…

> As we head into election season, a lot of us are going to get unsolicited text messages like this. You too can sue for them! Can you elaborate? Every source I've seen says that politicians have exempted themselves from the spam laws. e.g. a random google result: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/202... > That's because the National Do Not Call Registry does not apply to political text message…

At least in San Francisco, I took my phone number and email off my voter registration years ago and now almost never get any political texts, calls, or email, despite being quite politically active.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#114

Post by tedunangst »

tptacek wrote: post #101
cwkoss wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would LOVE to be able to sue political spammers. I donated to many candidates in 2016 and have been getting crazy amounts of text spam from pols ive never heard of for the past 5 years. Politicians shouldn't have zero consequences for selling my personal data.

You will never be able to do so; campaign calls are exempt from FCC rulemaking not because the FCC is particularly warm to political campaigns (though maybe they are), but because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner. Municipalities run into a similar problem with those awful circulars that pile up on your front stoop: ordinances to prohibit them have been struct down as unco…

Stand by while I make the case that politicians filling my phone with texts and voice messages is a violation of the third amendment.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#115

Post by deepsun »

eli wrote: post #29
throw8383833jj wrote: post #17

I think a much easier way would be if we just taxed phone calls at 1 cent each. I mean absolutely everything else is already taxed: you pay taxes just to stay alive. the least that could be done is add a 1 cent tax to each phone call, just enough to stop the mass phone calling.

An impractical and difficult to implement idea that would have terrible unintended consequences.

> difficult to implement idea

A lot of carriers has been billing by minute since the dawn of mobile telecom. And it's still in place in many (most?) countries. Only US/Canada/Mexico are used to unlimited phone calls.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#116

Post by deepsun »

throw8383833jj wrote: post #17

I think a much easier way would be if we just taxed phone calls at 1 cent each. I mean absolutely everything else is already taxed: you pay taxes just to stay alive. the least that could be done is add a 1 cent tax to each phone call, just enough to stop the mass phone calling.

There was a similar proposal (cannot find RFC) to add it to Email protocols. Would cut spam immediately.

It was even more advanced -- Recepient could choose how much sender should pay, and sender could agree to that (or do it non-interactively, i.e. send an email message with "Max-To-Pay" header, same as you can do it currently with international SMS).

Unfortunately, the proposal never got any adoption, because us, email users and providers.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#117

Post by Spooky23 »

Archelaos wrote: post #106
tptacek wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will never be able to do so; campaign calls are exempt from FCC rulemaking not because the FCC is particularly warm to political campaigns (though maybe they are), but because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner. Municipalities run into a similar problem with those awful circulars that pile up on your front stoop: ordinances to prohibit them have been struct down as unco…

> You will never be able to do so Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory? Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?

Not in our generation. The current thought process of conservative jurists is that money is speech and the founders wanted corporate entities to have unencumbered speech.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#118

Post by mrex »

300bps wrote: post #42
hash872 wrote: post #6

I would love to do this, but the few times that I've tried to look up the company, there's no real evidence as to who it is. And I'm fairly sophisticated at that kind of research, I know most of the tricks- however, these companies do successfully hide their identity. I did, one time, find the likely CEO of one of these companies, and I called his cell phone late on a Friday night to mess with him. However, I didn't…

This part is actually pretty simple. You simply keep responding that you’re interested. Click their link. Fill out their form. Eventually you’ll get to a real person at a real company that was benefiting from the illegal spam.

It's typically some affiliate-relationship that's conveniently structured to permit plausible deniability on the part of the ultimate recipient of the funds.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#119

Post by advisedwang »

exabrial wrote: post #94

Settling for $1200 with predjudice is a mistake... get a lawyer experienced in the area. You should be able to get roughly 2x the statutory amount by playing hardball!

$1500 is already triple damages. Why would they settle for more than that, when they could just default and $1500 would be the amount they owe with no further legal costs.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#120

Post by YeBanKo »

thathndude wrote: post #109
YeBanKo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He mentioned the exact jurisdiction where it happened. Can you point at least one thing, that is wrong?

Sure, I know of no jurisdiction that requires a pre-suit demand for a TCPA claim. “Issue a notice of demand explaining that you are seeking payment for TCPA violation and give them 10 days to respond. Send mail with signature delivery. (You can't sue without having issued a notice of demand.)” You do have to serve them once you file the case, but generally, I’m aware of no pre-suit-demand obligation for a TCPA case i…

Well, there is an article on this on Californian Court website: https://www.courts.ca.gov/9739.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en

"Small claims cases require that you ask the other side for payment before you go to court (unless there is a good reason why you cannot). You can ask in person, by phone, or in writing. You will have to tell the court you did this and how on your court form."

It does not specifically exclude TCPA statutory damage, so I think it does apply in this case.

And it does logically apply here too, small claims court is somewhere between an actual court and mediation and it is in place to save cost when possible. So it is reasonable to expect they want an attempt to resolve it before even before to file.

Anything else?

Post reply on HN