No. 18-1381

Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC v. RingCentral, Inc.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-05-02
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: advertising-space circuit-split commercial-availability fax-advertisement fcc-commentary incidental-advertisement ninth-circuit regulatory-interpretation seventh-circuit standing statutory-interpretation telephone-consumer-protection-act
Key Terms:
Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-06-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether an 'incidental fax advertisement' is exempt from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's definition of a 'fax advertisement'

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Did the Ninth Circuit err by following FCC commentary to hold that an “incidental [fax] advertisement’ ‘does not convert the _ entire communication into an advertisement, considering “the amount of space devoted to advertising versus the amount of space used for information,” when the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the FCC’s own codified regulation define a fax advertisement as “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services?” The Seventh Circuit previously declined to follow the FCC’s commentary, rendering a decision that conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case. Ira Holtzman, C.P.A. v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2013).

Docket Entries

2019-06-17
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.
2019-05-20
Waiver of right of respondent Ringcentral, Inc. to respond filed.
2019-04-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 3, 2019)

Attorneys

Ringcentral, Inc.
Brian Philip GoldmanOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Respondent
Brian Philip GoldmanOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Respondent
Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC
Phillip A. BockBock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Petitioner
Phillip A. BockBock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Petitioner