7th Circuit Holds That "Called Party" Means Current Subscriber of Cell Phone When Determining "Consent" Under the TCPA
Consumer & Class Action Litigation
Hinshaw Alert | 1 min read
May 11, 2012
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit today issued its opinion in Soppet vs. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC, No. 11-1389, a case involving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227. The TCPA prohibits automated telephone calls to cell phones where the “called party” did not “consent” to being called on his or her cell phone. The TCPA does not define the term “called party.” The appeal centered on the use of this term.
Both of the debtors involved in the case had provided their cell phone numbers to the creditor as alternative contact numbers. By the time the a debts were assigned for collection, the cell phone numbers in question had been reassigned to the two plaintiffs in this case. After plaintiffs were called via an autodialer, they sued, arguing that they did not “consent” to being called on their cell phones. Defendant debt collector argued that it did not violate the TCPA because it had “consent” to call the numbers in question and that it had intended to call the debtors. The debt collector also argued that the term “called party” should apply to the “intended recipient of the call.” Plaintiffs disagreed, arguing that the term “called party” meant the current subscriber of the phone, not the original debtor who had provided consent in past.
The Seventh Circuit agreed with plaintiffs, holding that a debtor’s transmittal of a cell phone to a creditor “does not authorize perpetual calls to that number after it has been reassigned to someone else.” The court, however, stated that “[b]ill collectors need not abandon predictive dialers,” and suggested that “other options” existed to allow debt collectors to continue to utilize autodialers.
In its decision, the Seventh Circuit referenced an amicus brief that Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP had filed on behalf of ACA International.
Download to read: Soppet vs. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC, No. 11-1389
For further information, please contact David M. Schultz.
Related People
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

Event
Mar 3 – 5, 2026
25th Annual Legal Malpractice & Risk Management (LMRM) Conference

Press Release
Feb 13, 2026
Hinshaw Team Wins Appeal in Criminal Indictment of Waukegan City Clerk Janet Kilkelly

Press Release
Feb 10, 2026
Hinshaw Trial Team Secures $0 Defense Verdict in $15 Million Auto Accident Trial

Press Release
Feb 4, 2026
Hinshaw Celebrates 17 Consecutive Years of Being Named an Equality 100 Award Winner

Press Release
Feb 5, 2026
Hinshaw Legal Team Secures Directed Verdict in Florida Equine Fraud Case

Press Release
Feb 2, 2026
Hinshaw Welcomes 16 Attorneys in Seven Offices and Announces Opening of a Cleveland Office

Press Release
Jan 20, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the LCLD 2026 Fellowship Class and 2026 Pathfinder Program

Press Release
Jan 15, 2026
Hinshaw Client Secures a Complete Jury Verdict in Fraudulent Misrepresentation Horse Sale Case

Press Release
Jan 6, 2026
Hinshaw Adds Four-Member Consumer Financial Services Team in DC and Florida




