The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits many unwanted calls and text messages. But in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that shaped how TCPA class actions can proceed—Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez. This case resolved a critical issue: Can a defendant avoid a class action simply by offering full relief to a single plaintiff?
The Court’s answer was no.
Below is a breakdown of the case, how it unfolded, and why it remains an important decision in TCPA litigation.
Background of the Case
Campbell-Ewald Company, a marketing contractor for the U.S. Navy, sent a mass text message campaign aimed at attracting recruits. One of those messages went to Jose Gomez—without his consent, he claimed.
Gomez sued under the TCPA, seeking:
- Statutory damages
- Injunctive relief, and
- Certification of a plaintiff class
Before the case could progress, Campbell-Ewald attempted to short-circuit the lawsuit by offering Gomez full individual damages and costs, arguing that this “mooted” the case and eliminated the basis for a class action.
The Legal Question
The Supreme Court reviewed a key issue: Does offering complete relief to an individual plaintiff—before they have a chance to certify a class—moot the plaintiff’s claim and end the lawsuit?
This question was particularly important in the context of the TCPA, where damages per call or text are fixed and defendants sometimes try to “pick off” named plaintiffs to avoid class-wide liability.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
In a 6–3 decision, the Court held: An unaccepted offer of settlement does not moot a plaintiff’s claim.
Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, emphasized:
- A settlement offer is just that—an offer.
- If the plaintiff does not accept it, there is no binding agreement.
- Courts cannot force a plaintiff to accept relief they did not agree to.
Because Gomez rejected the offer, his claim was still active, and he could continue seeking class certification. This ruling stopped the tactic often referred to as “picking off” a named plaintiff.
Why the Decision Matters for TCPA Litigation
1. Protects the viability of class actions TCPA violations typically involve small, fixed statutory damages. Class actions are often the only practical way to pursue relief for widespread illegal texting or calling campaigns. Campbell-Ewald ensures defendants cannot avoid accountability by targeting a single plaintiff with an early settlement offer.
2. Prevents strategic manipulation: Defendants can no longer derail a class action simply by offering the named plaintiff full compensation before certification is decided.
3. Strengthens consumer rights: The decision reinforces that unwanted texts and calls are actionable and that consumers can pursue class-wide remedies when companies engage in mass telemarketing activities.
4. Clarifies Article III “mootness” principles: The Court made clear that unaccepted offers do not eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the case.
Real-World Impact
This case has been cited widely in TCPA lawsuits, especially when defendants attempt to dismiss claims through early settlement maneuvers. Such as defendants selectively resolving individual claims to avoid broader accountability.
For businesses, this ruling is a reminder that TCPA compliance is essential and that procedural maneuvers are not a shield against class-wide exposure for unlawful telemarketing.
Key Takeaways
- Unaccepted settlement offers do not moot a lawsuit.
- TCPA class actions cannot be defeated by “picking off” a named plaintiff.
- Consumers can pursue class-wide relief for unlawful calls or texts.
- Businesses must maintain strict compliance to avoid expensive litigation.
Need Help With a TCPA Case? Contact Attorney David Head
If you’re dealing with unwanted robocalls, illegal telemarketing, or potential TCPA violations, Attorney David Head can help. David has extensive experience handling consumer protection and telecommunications cases, including class actions and individual TCPA claims.
Contact Information:
📞 801-691-7511