Federal Judge Dismisses Walmart Texting Lawsuit, Just Days After Another Federal Judge Ruled The Opposite Way For Papa Johns

Written by Evan Schuman
November 28th, 2012

Oh, that wacky federal court system. Within days of a U.S. federal judge ordering that retail pizza chain Papa Johns must stand trial in a class-action case alleging misuse of a customer texting program, a different federal judge dismissed an almost identical accusation against Walmart.

The cases both deal with the issue of consent. Specifically, if a shopper gives a chain a mobile phone number for any purpose, is that consent for the chain to use that number for an unlimited number of other purposes? In the Walmart case, a customer left a prescription with a Walmart pharmacy to be filled and then picked up later. The pharmacy associate asked for a mobile number “in case they needed to contact her,” presumably to discuss or ask about the prescription.

U.S. District Court Judge C. Lynwood Smith, Jr., said that Walmart associates said that the “telephone number was needed ‘in case there were any questions that came up.’ None of the defendant’s employees explicitly sought permission to send plaintiff text messages. Nevertheless, plaintiff received an undisclosed number of text messages on her cellular telephone from defendant within hours of leaving her prescription at defendant’s pharmacy.”

The customer’s lawyers argued that Walmart didn’t have the right to send the texts. “Walmart attempts to shift the burden of proof regarding express consent to plaintiff by insinuating that it is plaintiff’s fault she received text messages because she failed to instruct Walmart not to send her text messages. Defendant’s position is laughable. The sole reason the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was enacted was to protect consumers from receiving unsolicited calls.”

Walmart’s filing took a very different position: The customer “does not say how many text messages she received, what they said, that they caused her any harm or damage, or even that she didn’t want to receive them. Still, she seeks to represent everyone in Alabama who has received a text message from Walmart in the last six years and claims statutory damages under the TCPA of $1,500 per text message. Plaintiff’s claim, however, is barred by the simple fact, admitted in the complaint, that when asked for her cell phone number, she voluntarily provided it to Walmart and expressly for the purpose of Walmart’s contacting her on that phone.”

The judge agreed with Walmart and ruled that there exists no legal distinction between a voice call and a text message. The shopper argued, the judge wrote, that “‘text messages and voice phone calls have always been treated differently under the TCPA and FCC rules. The right to call does not give you the right to send text messages to the other.’ Plaintiff’s distinction does not comport with common sense and everyday experience. More importantly, the FCC and the courts have rejected the argument that the TCPA treats traditional voice telephone calls differently from text messages. Plaintiff inverts the burden of proof on the issue. Once she voluntarily provided defendant with her telephone number (i.e., generally consented), it was her responsibility to explicitly state the limited scope of her consent.”

The fact that the two federal judges came to such diametrically opposed decisions involving two major national retail chains and text campaigns that began with mobile phone numbers provided for an entirely different purpose makes it hard to take too many legal cues. (For that, StorefrontBacktalk Legal Columnist—and former federal prosecutor—Mark Rasch steps in.)

Regardless of how the courts ultimately rule, if your shoppers are infuriated by the texts—with such fury fueled by some of them being charged extra for your texts—the plan needs to be rethought.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.