Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Common Sense Reigns in 11th Circuit: A Brief Annoyance Does Not Create Standing

By Blaine C. Kimrey & Bryan K. Clark on September 4, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

For the vast majority of Americans, receiving a single unsolicited text message is a mere annoyance that does not warrant a federal lawsuit.  But spurred by the language of the TCPA and a series of judicial decisions nationwide, a cottage industry has sprung up around filing putative class action lawsuits centered around this sort of alleged “harm.”  Last week, the 11th Circuit dealt a significant blow to such cases, finding that receipt of a single unsolicited text message in violation of the TCPA is not sufficient to establish standing.

Diverging from a ruling by the 9th Circuit and teeing the issue up for potential Supreme Court consideration, the 11th Circuit held in Salcedo v. Hanna, Case No. 17-14077, that the plaintiff’s “allegations of a brief, inconsequential annoyance” were not “real but intangible harms.”  Id. at p. 19.   The 11th Circuit relied on the Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), to engage in a “qualitative” rather than “quantitative” analysis.  Id.  The court concluded that receipt of a single text message is not the type of “concrete and real” harm that is sufficient to constitute “injury in fact.”  Id.  “The chirp, buzz, or blink of a cell phone receiving a single text message is more akin to walking down a busy sidewalk and having a flyer briefly waived in one’s face.  Annoying, perhaps, but not a basis for invoking the jurisdiction of the federal courts.  All told, we conclude that [plaintiff’s] allegations do not state a concrete harm that meets the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.”  Id.

That it was necessary for a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to weigh in on such a seemingly common sense issue is probably surprising to some who have not followed the work done by the TCPA plaintiffs’ bar over the years.  But TCPA plaintiffs have had great success in turning single unsolicited text messages into multimillion dollar settlements.  The Salcedo decision, if adopted widely, would force plaintiffs to plead a specific concrete injury arising from the receipt of an unsolicited text message (or similar trifles) —which may be difficult (if not impossible) to do.  Regardless, the Salcedo standard should doom many TCPA putative class actions because a concrete injury would need to be shown as to each class member.

We will continue to watch this case with great interest; please keep an eye out for more updates.

Photo of Blaine C. Kimrey Blaine C. Kimrey
Read more about Blaine C. KimreyEmailBlaine C.'s Twitter Profile
Photo of Bryan K. Clark Bryan K. Clark

Bryan Clark is a Shareholder at Vedder Price and a member of the Litigation group in the firm’s Chicago office.

Read more about Bryan K. ClarkEmailBryan K.'s Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Technology and AI
  • Blog:
    Media & Privacy Risk Report
  • Organization:
    Vedder Price PC
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo