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

Press Release
Sep 18, 2026
Paris Glazer Named to Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s 2026 40 Attorneys Under Forty

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 17, 2026
Federal and State Regulators Continue Crackdown on Junk Fees

Press Release
Sep 17, 2026
Defense Verdict Reduces $134 Million Demand to $2 Million in Catastrophic Motorcycle Injury Case

Insights for Insurers Alert
Sep 16, 2026
America 250: The Nation’s Unique Contributions to Insurance Coverage Law and Litigation

In The News
Sep 15, 2026
Lucy Wang Discusses the California Insurance Commissioner’s Role in Protecting Consumers

Press Release
Sep 10, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Recognized as 2027 Lexology Index Thought Leaders: USA

In The News
Sep 10, 2026
Nicholas Ajello and Gregory Emry Analyze FAA’s Proposed BVLOS Drone Regulations

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 9, 2026
“Play Now, Arbitrate Later”—“Not So Fast,” Ninth Circuit Says

In The News
Sep 9, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses “Patchwork” of Laws Targeting Personalized Pricing

Employment Law Observer
Sep 8, 2026
Five Workplace Issues Every Employer Should Address Before They Become a Costly Lawsuit

Press Release
Sep 8, 2026
Jim Sandy Appointed Chair of ABA Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Subcommittee


