Law Street Media

Chipotle Receives Telemarketing Complaint After Spamming Customers with Offers

A cell phone reciving a call from an unknown number.

Phone call from unknown number late at night. Scam, fraud or phishing with smartphone concept. Prank caller, scammer or stranger. Man answering to incoming call. Hoax person with fake identity.

Last week , a class action lawsuit was filed against restaurant chain Chipotle in the Central District of California. The lawsuit, brought by a large group of Florida residents, claims that Chipotle violated the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).

The complaint recounts that the FTSA is an act that protects phone owners in Florida from intrusive calls and text messages. This act came in response to an issue regarding the prevalence of automated calls and texts, used by companies to solicit potential consumers.

The act states that “A person may not make or knowingly allow a telephonic sales call to be made if such call involves an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a number called without the prior express written consent of the called party.”

The class is categorized as “All persons in Florida who, at any time since July 1, 2021, received a telephonic sales call made by or on behalf of Defendant using the same type of equipment used to make telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff.”

“The number of persons within the Class is substantial, believed to amount to at least several thousand persons dispersed throughout Florida, who collectively received at least tens of thousands of telephonic sales calls by or on behalf of Defendant since July 1, 2021.”

According to the the plaintiff, she had “never provided her prior “prior express written consent” to Defendant or any other party acting on Defendant’s behalf to authorize the subject telephonic sales calls to the 9446 Number by means of an “automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers” within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 501.059(8)(a). Indeed, prior to making (or knowingly allowing another person to make on its behalf) the subject telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff’s 9446 Number, Defendant lacked a signed written agreement with Plaintiff that complies with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(g).”

In light of these allegations, the Plaintiff and the class request injunctive relief from the court, $500 per violation for each class member, a certification of class, as well as legal fees. 

The plaintiff is represented by Hedin Hall.

Exit mobile version