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

Webinar
May 19, 2026
Scott Seaman Speaks on Making Decisions in Difficult Risk Environments

Event
May 7, 2026 - May 9, 2026
Anshuman Vaidya Presents on IRS Criminal Tax Enforcement Priorities at the ABA Tax Meeting

Webinar
Apr 29, 2026
When a Cyber Breach Hits: Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Compliance

Event
Apr 23, 2026
Driving Ahead: Insights from Industry Leaders Auto Finance Seminar

Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Apr 21, 2026
When Does a Client’s Duty to Investigate Begin? Lessons from a Time-Barred Malpractice Case

Press Release
Apr 20, 2026
Tom Kuzmanovic Selected for BizTimes Milwaukee 2026 Notable Leaders in Law

Press Release
Apr 17, 2026
André Sesler Elected to the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Law Center Association

Hinshaw Alert
Apr 17, 2026
Q&A: How to Submit Your IEEPA Refund Claim as CAPE Portal Launches April 20, 2026





