Kohl’s Silent on TCPA Constitutional Challenge in Joint 26(f) Report
Plaintiff Mary Graehl and defendant Kohl’s propose July 28 as the deadline for completing discovery in Graehl’s Nov. 14 Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint against the retail chain, said a joint Rule 26(f) planning report Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-01341) in U.S.…
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.
District Court for Eastern Wisconsin in Milwaukee. Graehl alleges Kohl’s calls persisted even after she made “a verbal cease and desist request,” said the report. The retailer asserts Graehl gave her consent to be contacted in connection with her Kohl’s credit card when she applied for her account in May, it said. Kohl’s “has no record” of Graehl asking it to stop the calls, it said. Kohl’s “denies any liability” to Graehl in this case, it said: “This matter is in its infancy, and discovery is ongoing.” The company “reserves its rights to assert additional affirmative defenses,” it said. Kohl’s answered Graehl’s complaint this month, asserting the damages she seeks under the TCPA violate the 14th Amendment’s due process clause and constitute excessive fines in violation of the Eighth Amendment (see 2301090028). It made no mention of the constitutional challenges to the TCPA in the joint report.