A California federal court held that a ringless voicemail platform provider, Stratics Networks, was not responsible for alleged misuse of its technology by third parties.
04/19/2024 12:30 P.M.
2 minute read
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint last year on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, alleging that a company used Stratics Networks’ ringless voicemail service to advertise its debt relief services to consumers through millions of “robocalls.”
In United States v. Stratics Networks, Inc., the DOJ claimed that Stratics violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices, because the messages its client left misrepresented their debt relief services.
In response, Stratics moved for dismissal, arguing that it is an “interactive computer service” that is entitled to Section 230 protection.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects free speech on the internet by granting internet platforms legal immunity for the content posted by their users.
In a JD Supra post, Locke Lord LLP attorneys Michael McMorrow and Meagan Tom wrote: “The critical issues were whether Stratics’ platforms (1) met the definition of ‘interactive computer services’ and (2) whether Stratics was being sued ‘in its role as a provider or user of a computer service’ or for ‘conduct associated with distributing users’ messages. The court readily answered ‘yes’ to both questions…”
On March 6, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the claims against Stratics with prejudice. It found that Section 230 immunity applied, and that Stratics was not responsible for alleged misuse of its technology by third parties.
The court found that while ringless voicemails are calls under the TSR, the company that provided the platform for the delivery of the ringless voicemails did not violate the TSR.
The court also “found that Stratics was being sued because of the content of the messages it transmitted, and not for any conduct outside of that transmission, which the court found to be publishing that content,” Locke Lord wrote.
ACA’s Take
What can members take away from this case? Two key things:
- The court found that ringless voicemails are calls under the TSR and Telemarketing Act. This analysis is likely applicable to ringless voicemails made for debt collection purposes to the extent they are subject to the Telephone Consumer Practices Act.
- The ringless voicemail provider in this case was not liable for violations of the TSR or the Telemarketing Act.
Read the complaint (PDF) here.
Remember, subscribe to ACA Daily and Member Alerts under your My ACA profile when logged in to acainternational.org.