Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC v. RingCentral, Inc.

Did the Ninth Circuit err by following FCC commentary to hold that an “‘incidental [fax] advertisement’ ‘does not convert the entire communication into an advertisement,’ considering “the amount of space devoted to advertising versus the amount of space used for information,” when the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the FCC’s own codified regulation define a fax advertisement as “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services?” The Seventh Circuit previously declined to follow the FCC’s commentary, rendering a decision that conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case. Ira Holtzman, C.P.A. v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2013).