Matter of Steven L. v. State of New York

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a plaintiff was entitled to recover multiple $200.00 awards when multiple OCSPA violations caused separate/distinct harms
• holding that a plaintiff can recover under section 227(b)(3) and section 227(c)(5) even if both violations arose from the same call
• recognizing that “[s]ubsection [227](c) and its accompanying regulations in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) impose minimum procedures for maintaining a do-not-call list that apply to all calls—live or automated—initiated for telemarketing purposes”
• holding that the do- not-call provision, § 227(c), was implemented by § 64.1200(d)(4)
• finding that the regulations regarding internal do-not-call lists were promulgated under subsection (c) and recognizing a private right of action for violating these regulations
• concluding treble damages are available for willful or knowing violations of automated-call and do- not-call-list provisions of TCPA, “even if both violations occurred in the same call”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).