FTSA Violates First, 14th Amendments, Is ‘Unconstitutionally Vague,’ Says Redbox
Redbox denies the allegations in plaintiff Ruby Gamez’s Aug. 30 first amended complaint that it violated the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by placing unwanted automated and prerecorded solicitation calls to hundreds of consumers (see 2308310027), said its answer Wednesday in…
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.
U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Redbox doesn’t waive its right to file a motion to compel arbitration or to strike Gamez’s class allegations under its terms of use, it said. Those terms include a binding agreement to arbitrate and a waiver of the right to bring claims via class arbitration, class action or any other “representative class proceeding,” it said. Gamez’s claims are barred because the calls at issue were invited, permitted and consented to, or were made under “a personal or an established business relationship,” said Redbox. Her claims also are barred because the FTSA is unconstitutional, it said. The statute violates the Dormant Commerce Clause because it regulates or “discriminates against, and unduly burdens, interstate commerce,” it said. Section 8(a) of the FTSA also violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and Florida’s due process guarantee because it’s “unconstitutionally vague,” it said. Section 8(a) also violates the First Amendment and Florida’s “free speech guarantee,” it said: “Two closely analogous state laws in South Carolina and Arkansas have already been declared unconstitutional.”