Obamacare Robocall Vendor Immune From Class Suit

Bloomberg Law: Privacy & Data Security brings you single-source access to the expertise of Bloomberg Law’s privacy and data security editorial team, contributing practitioners,...

By Jimmy H. Koo

Consumers can’t sue a company that made Affordable Care Act enrollment reminder robocalls for the government over alleged telemarketing law violations, a Virginia federal court held May 1 ( Cunningham v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc. , 2017 BL 144380, E.D. Va., No. 1:16-cv-00545, 5/1/17 ).

Dismissing the class complaint on derivative sovereign immunity grounds, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services properly authorized General Dynamics Information Technology Inc. (GDIT) to make the phone calls about the ACA.

Petrina Hall McDaniel, a privacy and data security partner at Dentons in Atlanta, told Bloomberg BNA May 2 that the issue of derivative sovereign immunity is a “zero sum game.” Either government contractors are acting under authority validly conferred by the federal government or they aren’t, she said. However, it isn’t a blanket immunity and must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, she said.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government and government contractors have qualified immunity and are exempt from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims—as long as the defendants can show they were lawfully acting on behalf of the government—McDaniel said. Companies making calls on behalf of the government must ensure they are working within the governmental grant of authority, she said.

Named plaintiff Craig Cunningham alleged that GDIT used an automatic telephone dialing system to call his mobile phone and left a pre-recorded message reminding him to enroll in the ACA. He alleged that, because he didn’t give permission to receive such calls, they violated the TCPA.

Dismissing the claim with prejudice, Judge Liam O’Grady said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Const. Co. protects “federal contractors from both state and federal causes of action.” GDIT did exactly what it was authorized and instructed to do, the court concluded.

Kaufman & Canoles PC represented the plaintiff. Wiley Rein LLP and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP represented GDIT.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jimmy H. Koo in Washington at jkoo@bna.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Donald Aplin at daplin@bna.com

For More Information

Full text of the court's opinion is available at http://src.bna.com/orr.

Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Request Bloomberg Law: Privacy & Data Security