Ramaswamy’s Dismissal Motion ‘Wholly Lacking in Merit,’ TCPA Plaintiff Says

Grant’s TCPA complaint alleges Ramaswamy’s campaign, Vivek 2024, which was suspended Jan. 15, placed calls with the candidate's prerecorded voice. They were sent to consumers’ cellphones to promote the candidate’s telephonic town hall events. The calls were placed without obtaining consumers' prior express consent, the complaint alleges. Grant contends that a political candidate who doesn’t make calls, but whose official campaign instead makes them for him, may be held personally liable under the TCPA. Grant “sufficiently alleges” Ramaswamy’s liability for the prerecorded political campaign calls he received, said his opposition. As a result, Grant’s injuries from the calls “are traceable to Ramaswamy’s conduct,” it said. Grant sufficiently alleges that Ramaswamy “either personally placed the calls or, alternatively, was so heavily involved in the calls that he can either be deemed to have initiated them or is liable under control based and vicarious theories of liability,” it said. With regard to each theory, Grant alleges that Ramaswamy “determined to whom prerecorded calls would be sent, when they would be sent, and their content, and otherwise knew about and expressly authorized the transmission of the calls for his own personal benefit” as a candidate for president, “without consent, and despite complaints about them,” said the opposition. Grant’s allegations “are sufficient to put Ramaswamy on notice” of his claims, it said: “These are precisely the same types of allegations that have been deemed sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage to assert a TCPA claim against a political candidate arising from his campaign’s robocalls.” Ramaswamy’s robocalls aren’t “otherwise exempt from liability,” said the opposition. The exemptions Ramaswamy relies on “apply only to robocalls to landline numbers and not to robocalls to wireless numbers,” it said. His motion to dismiss should be denied “in total,” it said. Ramaswamy either expressly authorized making the prerecorded calls or knew that they were going to be made for his personal benefit, said the opposition. He did “nothing to stop them,” despite complaints from consumers about receiving them, it said. Ramaswamy also controlled the recipients of the calls by dictating that the messages were to be sent to voters registered as independents who had no prior relationship with him, said the opposition. Ramaswamy also controlled or had the right to control the messages' content, “as he is the candidate who ultimately stood to be elected” and personally recorded many of the messages transmitted to consumers as part of the prerecorded calls promoting his town hall meetings, it said.