Securus Technologies sued in TCPA class action lawsuit – TCPAWorld

Hey TCPAWorld! There was a time when I received TONS of calls from Securus, which I honestly never thought were illegal at the time. And now… I doubt I was wrong in that assumption.

In Gena Alexander v. Securus Technologies, LLCfiled in the Middle District of Florida, the plaintiff alleges that, among other TCPA violations, she received pre-recorded telemarketing calls without her prior express written consent. What makes this case particularly interesting, however, is the context in which these calls were made—specifically, the involvement of inmate-initiated calls using services provided by Securus Technologies.

The TCPA clearly prohibits unsolicited, recorded calls without prior express consent. In this case, the plaintiff alleges that Securus Technologies made several unsolicited, recorded calls to promote their “phone services” to a phone number registered with the National Do Not Call Registry. Nowhere in the lawsuit does it mention that the calls were prison calls, so maybe they weren't… BUT if they were prison calls… the real question would be whether these calls, often initiated by inmates, should be treated differently under the TCPA.

Incarcerated individuals have limited communication options, and services like those provided by Securus Technologies are often their only connection to the outside world for many. The question here is whether these calls made from within the prison have the same TCPA implications as typical telemarketing calls. In the past, courts have reviewed telemarketing calls differently depending on the context, but the TCPA does not provide an explicit exception for calls made by or on behalf of inmates.

So, Smith v. Securus Techs., Inc.120 F. Supp. 3d 976, 982 (D. Minn. 2015), has already addressed this issue, finding that Securus “cannot be held legally liable for violating the TCPA” because it did not “make” the calls. That was no surprise, and I suspect no surprise here either.

Another important issue is whether the inmate who initiates the call can be held liable as a “caller” under the TCPA. Generally, liability under the TCPA rests with the entity that initiates the call or directs that the call be made. In this case, Securus Technologies would typically be considered a “caller” because they are the service provider facilitating the communication and allegedly using pre-recorded messages to advertise their services.

However, could one argue that the inmate, as the initiator of the communication, bears some responsibility? The answer depends largely on the degree of control and intent behind the call. If the inmate was simply using a service provided by Securus without having knowledge or control over the telemarketing content, it would be difficult to assign TCPA liability to the inmate. On the other hand, if it could be shown that the inmate was actively involved in the telemarketing process or directly benefited from it, there might be a basis – albeit tenuous – for liability.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts on this case at the moment.

I will definitely keep a close eye on this!

Here is the full complaint.