Charter Communications Sued For Unsolicited Texts

On Wednesday in the District of Connecticut, Jackson Pavelka filed a putative class-action suit against Charter Communications for allegedly contacting the plaintiff on his cell phone without prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The plaintiff asserted that he registered his cell phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry in March 2019. Pavelka claimed that on February 25, Charter Communications “contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in an attempt to communicate with Plaintiff regarding purchasing television, internet, and/or voice services from Defendant’s Spectrum brand.” Pavelka averred that the original number that called him was “an internet generated spoof number” in order to be the same area code as his cell phone because when he asked a representative from the defendant for a callback number he was given a different number with a different area code. 

The next day, the defendant allegedly contacted the plaintiff again on his cell phone. “When Plaintiff answered this call, he heard a recorded voice. Upon pressing ‘1’ to speak to a representative, a distinct pause was heard and there was a delay prior to a live person speaking, indicative of an automated telephone dialing system.” The plaintiff claimed he was repeatedly contacted with spoofed numbers, the listed number for specific Charter Spectrum retail locations, and Charter’s automated service number. The plaintiff stated that he requested multiple times for the defendant not to contact him. 

Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that in September, Charter Communications began to contact him via SMS text message, again for the purpose of “purchasing television, internet, and/or voice services from Defendant’s Spectrum brand”; Pavelka proffered that these numbers were also spoofed.

Moreover, the plaintiff stated that “numerous other complaints confirm Defendant’s improper use of spoofed local phone number for unwanted automated robocalls.” Plaintiff Pavelka averred that Charter Communications has a “pervasive, knowing and willful policy of purposely targeting people’s mobile phones without express permission” and for purportedly using spoofing and robocalling.

According to the plaintiff, these calls “constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes” as defined by the TCPA. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant did not receive his “‘prior express consent’ to receive calls using an automated dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular phone” as stated in the TCPA.  

The putative class covers others in the United States who received calls or texts to their cell phone from Charter Communications that were made through an automated dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and the individual did not give prior express consent.

Charter Communications was accused of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and for unjust enrichment. The plaintiff has sought an order certifying the class, for the plaintiff and his counsel to represent the class, an award for damages, an award for costs and fees, disgorgement, and injunctive relief. The plaintiff is represented by Wocl Leydon LLC.