Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, LLC, No. 16-2185 (4th Cir. 2020)

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that PDR Network violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited advertisements by fax. The district court held that the Hobbs Act did not require it to adopt the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA (the 2006 FCC Rule) because the Hobbs Act does not control when no party “has challenged the validity of the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA.” The district court concluded that, under the TCPA, unsolicited fax advertisements are not actionable unless they have a commercial purpose. The district court then determined that PDR Network’s fax was not commercial in nature and dismissed the complaint without granting leave to amend.

Plaintiff appealed and the Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in conducting a Chevron analysis, and interpreted the 2006 FCC Rule to mean that a fax offering free goods and services qualifies as an “advertisement” under the TCPA, regardless of whether it has an underlying commercial purpose. PDR Network petitioned for certiorari and the Supreme Court granted review. The Supreme Court determined that to the extent to which the 2006 FCC Rule binds the lower courts may depend on the resolution of two preliminary sets of questions that were not aired before the Court of Appeals.

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit resolved the first five of seven issues submitted to the parties by concluding that a remand to the district court for discovery was not necessary; the relevant portions of the 2006 FCC Rule are interpretive rather than legislative; and thus the third, fourth, and fifth issues are moot. In regard to the sixth issue regarding what level of deference (if any) must the district court afford the 2006 FCC Rule, the court declined to decide in the first instance and remanded for the district court to have the first opportunity to perform the applicable analysis. Given the court’s remand to the district court to consider what level of deference the court should afford the 2006 FCC Rule and what the proper meaning of “unsolicited advertisement” is in light of that deference, the court found it unnecessary to resolve the issue of whether the district court erred by failing to grant leave to amend.