Parler Uses Same 3-Pronged Defense in Second of 2 TCPA Suits
Social media platform Parler used the same three-pronged defense in the second of two Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuits against it as it did in the first (see 2211180050). It filed separate and simultaneous motions (docket 3:22-cv-21243) to dismiss the…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
class action by consumer Jordan Copeland in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Pensacola and to compel arbitration of the dispute. It also filed a third motion to transfer the case to U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas. The Pensacola lawsuit, like the one before it in Miami, also alleges that Parler violated the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. “It was improper for Copeland to sue in Florida,” said Parler’s motion to dismiss. “Copeland agreed to a binding and mandatory arbitration agreement which must be enforced,” it said. “If for any reason the Court declines to enforce that arbitration agreement, Copeland nevertheless agreed to a forum selection clause requiring any disputes between him and Parler to be resolved in Nevada.” Even if Pensacola were the proper forum to adjudicate Copeland’s claims, “those claims must be dismissed,” said Parler. “As a threshold matter, Copeland fails to allege that he or any putative class member suffered a concrete harm or injury-in-fact which may be redressed by a judgment from this Court. Thus, Copeland lacks standing to pursue the claims asserted.”