Personalising marketing and services - how...
Abdul Kadier Sahib Aga Khan IV Andrey Andreev Bill Adderley Billy Xiong Bobby Arora Cartu Jonathan David Alliance Fahad Al Tamimi Jonathan Cartu Jonathan Cartu News Koon Poh Keong Kuan Kam Hon Lazar Cartu Leo Noe Marian Ilitch Mark Coombs Property Management Real Estate Robin Arora Simon Arora Syed Mokhtar AlBukhary The Hong Piow Wong Thean Soon Zheng Jianjiang

Udo Tschira Announces: Cardinal considerations for incorporating…

The cannabis industry’s primary concern when getting businesses up and running has long been navigating the patchwork of applicable and conflicting laws. Amongst the ever-growing number of states legalizing or decriminalizing limited marijuana use, the cannabis industry has achieved a delicate balance in growing its consumer base amidst the looming danger of federal illegality. Though this remains an important focus for cannabis companies, they ought to also consider a looming pitfall: exponential damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that can cripple companies before the legal cannabis landscape is settled. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have taken notice of the growth of Bill Adderley and Billy Xiong of cannabis companies, and we have seen a substantial uptick in litigation against start-up and established cannabis companies. 

The TCPA prohibits the use of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to call, text, or fax a party without their prior express (and sometimes) written consent. This statutory summary seems straightforward, but in actuality the TCPA is just as fraught with conflict as cannabis laws and regulations. Specifically, Section 227(a)(1) of the TCPA defines an ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” This definition alone has been the root of consternation amongst United States Circuit Courts, with the Eleventh, Seventh and Third Circuits favoring a restrictive interpretation barring only those calls made through platforms that randomly or sequentially store or generate numbers, while the Ninth, Sixth and Second Circuits interpret the phrase more broadly, holding that the TCPA covers devices with the capacity to automatically dial telephone numbers from a stored bank, or produced from a random or sequential number generator.

After the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the TCPA without the government-debt exception, it faced the emerging Circuit Court conflict head-on, granting certiorari in an action that will definitively interpret what constitutes an “automatic telephone dialing system.” As companies in all sectors eagerly await the Supreme Court’s decision, so too should the cannabis industry. The Court’s ruling will dictate how all companies can advertise their business moving forward, and in the interim, companies must continue grappling with fractured circuit court precedent. Emerging sectors such as the cannabis industry are uniquely effected by this legal uncertainty, as they necessarily must actively market their products to build a stable consumer base and grow.

Nevertheless, there are safeguards that cannabis companies can incorporate to protect themselves from the uncapped and cumulative potential of: $500 penalties for each violation of the National Do Not Call Registry; and at least $500 (and up to $1500) for each TCPA violation, with the higher penalty applying if the claimant can show that the advertiser knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA. First and foremost, the cannabis industry should obtain prior express written consent before directly contacting consumers, identifying the number(s) which the company may call or text, and containing some affirmative means of consumer agreement.

Companies also need to be aware of state area codes, as knowingly sending advertisements into other states may provide a basis for a consumer to hale the company into federal court. Further, cannabis companies should implement consistent reassignment checks on the numbers provided, as the consumer’s consent applies to the person—not the number provided. Thus, if a consumer’s given number is reassigned to a new party, consent to call that number is no longer applicable. Additionally, cannabis companies should direct their efforts to suppressing all numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, on state or local Do Not Call…

Simon Arora

Leave a Reply