Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Enclarity Inc., et al. v. Matthew N. Fulton
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 17-1380 · judgment November 2, 2018
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act regulates the sending of “unsolicited advertisement[s]” to fax machines. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). The statute defines “advertisement” as “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services.” Id. § 227(a)(5). The question presented is: Whether faxes that only request information and propose no commercial transaction with recipients are “advertisements” under the TCPA.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Joseph Russell Palmore
Morrison & Foerster LLP
For respondent
Phillip A. Bock
Bock, Hatch & Oppenheim, LLC
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Nov 08 2019JUDGMENT ISSUED.
- Oct 07 2019Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 588 U. S. ___ (2019).
- Jul 03 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
- Jul 02 2019Reply of petitioners Enclarity Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Jun 13 2019Brief of respondent Matthew N. Fulton in opposition filed.
- May 14 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.
- May 14 2019Response Requested. (Due June 13, 2019)
- Mar 27 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 29, 2019)