Page v. Regions Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• holding plaintiff had TCPA standing even though number was registered in someone else’s name because he was the cell phone’s “regular user and carrier”
• applying the rule of last antecedent to find “charged for the call” only applied to “any service”
• rejecting argument that only “called party” has standing after finding “no limitation in the text of the statute to indicate that only a ‘called party’ may assert a TCPA claim”
• “[T]he Leyse court cites § 227(b)(3) for the proposition that ‘[a] called party who receives such a call is permitted to bring suit to collect $500 in statutory damages.’ As explained above, the term ‘called party’ does not even appear in § 227(b)(3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).