In a
hearing that just concluded this afternoon in Washington DC, a
three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit of the Federal
Court of Appeals, composed of Judges Sri Srinivasan, Nina Pillard, and
Senior Circuit Judge and Chief Judge Emeritus Harry Edwards, heard the
much-anticipated oral arguments in ACA International, et al. v. FCC. The
ACA Int’l consolidated appeal challenges the validity of the Federal
Communication Commission’s oft-criticized rule changes and
interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in its July 10,
2015 Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order.
ACA and the other petitioners strategically focused critical arguments on three core areas related to the FCC’s Order – the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system,” the identity of the “called party,” and the means by which consent can be revoked. During the oral arguments, which lasted nearly three hours, there were a number of questions raised by the judges related to these important issues.
ACA’s CEO, Pat Morris, Vice President and General Counsel, Robert L. Föehl, and Regulatory Counsel, Maria Wolvin, attended oral arguments. “The oral arguments in our case against the FCC are the culmination of 15 months of intense work and preparation,” Föehl stated. “We made powerful arguments before a panel of engaged judges who appeared to understand the complexity of the TCPA and the issues resulting from the FCC’s 2015 ruling. Now we wait patiently for their informed decision.”
The oral arguments were the next step in the legal process for this case. ACA filed the first petition for review within hours after the FCC issued the TCPA Order in July, 2015. ACA argued in its petition that the FCC’s exercise of regulatory authority expanded the scope and reach of the TCPA in a way that Congress never intended – leaving a law in place that hurts legitimate, law-abiding business. ACA’s appeal, as well as the subsequent appeals filed by nine other businesses and organizations, were later centralized in the D.C. Circuit by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
ACA and the other petitioners strategically focused critical arguments on three core areas related to the FCC’s Order – the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system,” the identity of the “called party,” and the means by which consent can be revoked. During the oral arguments, which lasted nearly three hours, there were a number of questions raised by the judges related to these important issues.
ACA’s CEO, Pat Morris, Vice President and General Counsel, Robert L. Föehl, and Regulatory Counsel, Maria Wolvin, attended oral arguments. “The oral arguments in our case against the FCC are the culmination of 15 months of intense work and preparation,” Föehl stated. “We made powerful arguments before a panel of engaged judges who appeared to understand the complexity of the TCPA and the issues resulting from the FCC’s 2015 ruling. Now we wait patiently for their informed decision.”
The oral arguments were the next step in the legal process for this case. ACA filed the first petition for review within hours after the FCC issued the TCPA Order in July, 2015. ACA argued in its petition that the FCC’s exercise of regulatory authority expanded the scope and reach of the TCPA in a way that Congress never intended – leaving a law in place that hurts legitimate, law-abiding business. ACA’s appeal, as well as the subsequent appeals filed by nine other businesses and organizations, were later centralized in the D.C. Circuit by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment