World421_AP_02

Task prompt

What the agent was asked to do

We received a complaint from Barbara Smith who alleges that SLL sent eleven text messages to a cell phone number that she had placed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and provided to her eighty-five year old mother. Her mother opted-in to receive automated promotional messages through a webform after clicking on an advertisement. Can you review all analogous cases to the issue and determine whether SLL can be held liable for sending these text messages? Please briefly explain your conclusion on SLL’s liability in one or two sentences. I would also like you to give me the three most applicable cases and their holdings. Write your answer to me here.

Grading rubric

Criteria and grader verdict (showcase run)

1. States that one of the analogous cases that is most applicable to the facts is Hall v. Smosh Dot Com Inc

   Pass

   Evidence: The response lists “Hall v. Smosh Dot Com, Inc.” in the “Three most applicable cases and holdings” table and states “This is the closest analogue.” Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states Hall is one of the most applicable analogous cases; pass.

2. States that one of the analogous cases that is most applicable to the facts is Wilson v. Skopos Financial, LLC

   Pass

   Evidence: The response lists “Wilson v. Skopos Financial, LLC” in the “Three most applicable cases and holdings” table. Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states Wilson is one of the most applicable analogous cases; pass.

3. States that one of the analogous cases that is most applicable to the facts is Satterfield v. Simon Schuster Inc

   Fail

   Evidence: The three cases listed are “Hall v. Smosh Dot Com, Inc.,” “Wilson v. Skopos Financial, LLC,” and “ACA International v. FCC.” Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster Inc. is one of the most applicable cases; it does not mention Satterfield, so fail.

4. States that a telemarketing text sent to a number listed on the Do-Not-Call Registry violates the TCPA, even if the communications are intended for (or solicited by) another individual

   Fail

   Evidence: The response says SLL “can still be held liable unless it can prove” consent and that Hall gives Barbara standing “despite her mother’s use/opt-in,” but also says SLL “may still defeat liability on the merits if the mother’s consent legally counts.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating that a telemarketing text to a DNC-listed number violates the TCPA even if intended for/solicited by another individual. The response is qualified and does not state that such solicitation is irrelevant to violation; fail.

5. States that a text message falls under the scope of a "call" for the purposes of the TCPA

   Pass

   Evidence: The response states Wilson held that “DNC claims can be based on promotional texts” and that “unsolicited text messages sent in violation of the DNC Registry can give rise to a cause of action under § 227(c)(5).” Assessment: This clearly conveys that text messages are treated within the TCPA call/DNC framework, despite noting a split; pass.

6. States that communication to phone numbers via text message is covered by the National Do-Not-Call Registry

   Pass

   Evidence: The response states “eleven promotional texts to a DNC-listed number create real TCPA exposure” and that Wilson supports that “eleven promotional texts to a DNC-listed number can satisfy the repeated-contact element.” Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states text communications are covered by the National Do-Not-Call Registry; the response does state that DNC claims can be based on texts, so pass.

7. States that SLL sent text messages to Barbara Smith's cell phone number without her consent

   Pass

   Evidence: The response says the mother opted in, discusses consent by a “customary/authorized user,” and contrasts consent by a customary user “rather than by the subscriber herself.” Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states SLL sent texts to Barbara Smith’s cell number without her consent. The response sufficiently indicates Barbara herself did not provide the consent, while the mother did; pass.

8. States that SLL sent text messages to Barbara Smith's cell phone number with the knowledge that the number was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry

   Fail

   Evidence: The response says the number was “DNC-listed” and that texts to it create “TCPA exposure,” but it does not say SLL knew the number was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Assessment: The criterion specifically requires stating SLL sent the texts with knowledge of the registry listing; this is absent, so fail.

9. States that SLL is likely to be held liable for a TCPA violation

   Fail

   Evidence: The response concludes “SLL can still be held liable unless it can prove” consent, but also says “If SLL has that consent record and Barbara provided the phone for her mother’s use, SLL has a strong merits defense” and describes only “real TCPA exposure.” Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states SLL is likely to be held liable. The response is equivocal and does not conclude likely liability; fail.