CHICAGO — A federal judge has denied a request to dismiss a class-action suit against Allstate for allegedly placing unsolicited sales calls to customers’ cell phones, even though the lead plaintiff received only one such phone call.
The decision was handed down on April 17 by U.S. District Judge Jorge L. Alonso in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The case was first brought by plaintiff Reid Postle, who alleged the insurance company placed a single unsolicited phone call to his cell phone. Postle claims the insurance company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by using an auto dialer system to call his cell phone.
Mark Levin
| Ballard Spahr
“Postle alleges the call harmed him by violating his privacy, subjecting him to an annoying and harassing call that deprived him of the legitimate use of his cell phone while he dealt with the call,” Alonso wrote in the decision. “In his response brief, Postle explains the call harmed him by depleting his cell phone battery, wasting his time and creating a risk of personal injury due to interruption and distraction.”
Allstate objected to the allegations, arguing that a single phone call was not enough to confer standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution - which is required to bring suit - and that the damage he claims to have suffered was “self-inflicted” because he didn’t have to answer the call. The company also pointed out that Postle was not charged for the call.
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, Alonso found that “a statutory violation confers Article III standing if it causes actual harm or ‘present[s] an appreciable risk of harm to the underlying concrete interest that Congress sought to protect in enacting the statute.’”
“Postle’s claim that his privacy was violated as a result of the call he received - the alleged TCPA violation by [Allstate] - is sufficient, in and of itself, to establish a concrete injury under Article III,” Alonso wrote in the decision.
In fact, Postle went a step further, alleging “particularized harm” from three additional defined elements: occupying his cell phone line, distracting him with the call and wasting his time.
Alonso noted that Section 227 of the TCPA “directly forbids phone calls that by their nature infringe the privacy-related interests that Congress sought to protect,” asserting that any such violation can be inherently found to be legitimate regardless of whether it causes harm to a given standard.
“Tangible economic harm is not required to establish standing under the TCPA,” Alonso wrote in the decision. “The intangible harm - intrusion upon one’s privacy - is sufficient in and of itself. Accordingly, Postle’s allegations are sufficient to establish Article III standing.”
Postle is represented in the case by attorneys Alexander H. Burke, of the Burke Law Offices LLC, of Chicago; Daniel M. Hutchinson, Jonathan D. Selbin and Andrew R. Kaufman, of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, of San Francisco, New York and Nashville; and Matthew R. Wilson and Michael Joseph Boyle Jr., of Meyer Wilson Co. LPA, of Columbus, Ohio.
Allstate is defended by attorneys Mark Levin, Emilia Luisa McKee Vassallo and Daniel L. Delnero, of the firm of Ballard Spahr LLP, of Philadelphia and Atlanta; Kristine M. Schanbacher and Mark L. Hanover, of Dentons US LLP, of Chicago; and Philip N. Yannella, of Dechert LLP, of Philadelphia.