Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY: U.S. sues to block Anthem-Cigna, Aetna-Humana deals
    • ADVERTISING NEWS: FTC action halts medical discount card scheme
    • ADVERTISING—N.D. Cal.: Fitbit can’t put sleep tracking misrepresentation claims to rest
    • ADVERTISING—N.D. Ohio: Glue maker not entitled to competitors’ documents held by FTC
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Dealer banks allegedly conspired to manipulate agency bonds market
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Nishikawa fined $130M for participation in auto parts bid rigging scheme
    • ANTITRUST—D. Mass.: Monopolization claims based on product hopping adequately alleged
    • BLOG TRACKER—Noteworthy blog posts and other commentary
    • PRIVACY NEWS: Supreme Court asked to settle vicarious liability question under TCPA
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, PRIVACY NEWS: Supreme Court asked to settle vicarious liability question under TCPA, (Jul 21, 2016)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim LLC
    Organizations Mentioned:Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim | Bridgeview Health Center, Ltd.

    By Greg Hammond, J.D.

    A health care center in Illinois is asking the Supreme Court to hold that a "sender" under the 1995 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations is the entity "on whose behalf" a fax is sent, and that such a determination does not require proo ...

    By Greg Hammond, J.D.

    A health care center in Illinois is asking the Supreme Court to hold that a "sender" under the 1995 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations is the entity "on whose behalf" a fax is sent, and that such a determination does not require proof of common law agency. The health care center seeks review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, which affirmed that an individual was not liable, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), for faxes sent by his marketing company (Bridgeview Health Center, Ltd. v. Clark, Dkt. 16-91).

    After receiving an unsolicited fax ad for Affordable Digital Hearing’s (ADH’s) services, Bridgeview Health Care Center, Ltd. filed a class action suit against Jerry Clark, ADH’s owner, for violating the TCPA. The district court determined that Clark authorized fax ads sent within 20 miles of ADH. However, the court concluded that Clark was not liable for the fax ads sent to businesses beyond a 20-mile radius, including faxes sent to Bridgeview. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed.

    The petition asks whether the TCPA and its regulations, as they existed prior to August 1, 2006, which hold that the party "on whose behalf" an unsolicited facsimile advertisement is sent is directly liable under the statute and the regulations sub silentio import common law agency requirements.

    According to Bridgeview, the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have given deference to the FCC’s interpretation of its 1995 FCC regulations—that a reasonable and consistent interpretation of its "sender" regulation is that common law agency principles do not govern. Bridgeview, however, claims that the Seventh Circuit’s decision—which affirmed a finding that Clark had no vicarious liability for the faxes promoting his business that the marketing company sent to people outside the designated geographic radius—created a circuit split.

    Attorneys: David M. Oppenheim (Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim LLC) for Bridgeview Health Center, Ltd.

    Companies: Bridgeview Health Center, Ltd.

    News: Privacy

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use