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

In The News
Aug 24, 2026
David Schultz Reviews a Humorous—But Important—FDCPA Procedural Ruling

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
115 Hinshaw Lawyers Recognized in 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch®

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
Hinshaw’s Landmark Tower Client Project Receives 2026 Top Projects Award

Press Release
Aug 19, 2026
Fernando Rivera-Maissonet Elected as HNBA Region II Governor and Board of Governors Member

Employment Law Observer
Aug 17, 2026
Massachusetts’ First Paid Family Medical Leave Act Verdict Yields $4.75 Million Award

Press Release
Aug 13, 2026
Lauren Campisi Recognized as a 2026 BTI Client Service All-Star by BTI Consulting Group

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Aug 13, 2026
How Will Banks Be Impacted by the Proposed Regulation O Amendments?

Press Release
Aug 12, 2026
William Cook Honored With the Distinguished Service Award by the Chicago Bar Association

Webinar
Aug 12, 2026
John Ryan Presents on "Understanding what is Covered Under the TCPA Today"

In The News
Aug 12, 2026
Scott Seaman Analyzes California’s New Pleading Standards for Excess Insurance Policy Claims



