Recently, the Northern District of Florida certified two classes under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in a matter regarding alleged telemarketing text messages.
Background
In Jackson v. Athena Bitcoin, Inc., 2025 WL 2237453 (N.D. Fla. June 18, 2025), the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Athena Bitcoin, Inc., the defendant, alleging violations of the TCPA and its state analog, the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA), due to the receipt of unsolicited text messages. Plaintiff claimed that after providing his phone number for transaction verification, as required at Athena’s cryptocurrency ATMs, he received telemarketing messages despite sending a “stop” message, which was acknowledged by Athena. Plaintiff sought to certify two classes.
The first is the TCPA “Internal Do Not Call Class” (IDNC Class), which requires, among other things, maintaining a written do-not-call-list policy and honoring do-not-call requests.
The second is the “FTSA Stop Class” (FTSA Class), which prohibits initiation of an “outbound telephone call to a consumer, business, or donor or potential donor who has previously communicated to the telephone solicitor or other person that he or she does not wish to receive an outbound telephone call, text message, or voicemail transmission…”
Court’s Decision
The court found that both the IDNC Class and the FTSA Class are each ascertainable through objective criteria, such as phone numbers and area codes, and that the methodology used by Jackson’s expert was reliable. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the class is also “administratively feasible” as it is not relevant to ascertainability (although possibly relevant to other Rule 23 factors such as manageability). The court further rejected the defendant’s argument that the class is not ascertainable because some individuals who received the text message may have their wireless plans paid by other individuals. The court noted that individuals whose cell phones are paid for under family plans may have standing to sue under the TCPA and further clarified that the “family plan issue” does not impact ascertainability under these facts, where the defendant obtained the phone numbers and names at its ATMs.
The court also determined that the commonality requirement’s “low hurdle” was met, as there were common questions of law and fact, such as whether Athena had instituted the required do-not-call policies and whether the text messages constituted telemarketing. The typicality requirement was satisfied because Jackson’s claims were nearly identical to those of the proposed class members. The court found that the adequacy of representation requirement was met, as there were no conflicts of interest, and the plaintiff’s counsel was deemed competent.
Finally, the court found that the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) were satisfied, as common questions predominated over individual issues, and a class action was deemed superior to individual lawsuits. The court concluded that the plaintiff had demonstrated compliance with the requirements for class certification, and the classes were adequately defined and ascertainable.
Key Takeaway
This case serves as a reminder of the relatively low threshold for meeting class certification under the TCPA, where data can be easily gathered and used to determine key facts, such as whether a class member texted “STOP” and received a text in response.
