A District Court judge in Ohio has ruled that an individual can not orally revoke consent to be contacted under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act if the consent was granted as part of a contract.
The ruling is significant, noted Jonathan Hoffmann of Balch & Bingham because this ruling applies a precedent from another Circuit, which opens the door for the ruling to be applied in a new part of the country.
In this new ruling, Barton v. Credit One Bank, the defendant was granted summary judgment after the judge ruled that the attempt by the plaintiff to orally revoke consent from being contacted by the defendant was not permissible, given the terms of the cardholder agreement that the plaintiff agreed to when applying for a credit card.
A copy of the ruling can be accessed by clicking here.
When the defendant was contacted by the plaintiff’s attorney and provided written notice to cease communication, the defendant complied with the request.
Judge Donald Nugent applied the ruling in Reyes v. Lincoln Auto in granting summary judgment for the defendant.
The revocation clause within the Cardholder Agreement is valid and enforceable, and Mr. Barton cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the agreement to claim that his oral revocation of consent was valid. Despite Mr. Barton’s reliance on distinguishable case law, the TCPA ‘does not permit a consumer who agrees to be contacted by telephone as part of a bargained-for transaction to unilaterally revoke that consent.’
From Hoffmann’s analysis of the case:
Barton is a great victory for businesses with contractual relationships with their customers that address consent to call. Barton takes Reyes out of the Second Circuit and into the Sixth, showing that its reasoning can resonate in new forums. Barton also adds further weight to the door opened in the ACA International, Inc. v. FCC opinion which made clear that the now partly defunct 2015 FCC Declaratory Ruling never addressed contractual limitations on revocation.
