Rogers v. Postmates Inc.

Background

Richard Rogers filed a proposed class action against Postmates Inc. under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal law restricting certain automated calls and text messages. Rogers alleged that he received an unsolicited text message stating, “Richard, PostMates needs you,” offering hourly pay for delivery work in Fort Lauderdale, and linking to a Postmates job board. He alleged that the message was sent using an automatic telephone dialing system and without his prior express consent.

Rogers asserted one claim on behalf of people who allegedly received similar text messages containing links that redirected to Postmates-related web addresses. Postmates moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), according to the opinion’s introduction. The court’s legal analysis applied the pleading standard generally described for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Direct liability

The court explained that, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a person may be responsible for a call or text if that person directly made it or had an agency relationship with the person who made it. The court found that Rogers pleaded only conclusory allegations that Postmates itself, or an intermediary acting for Postmates, transmitted or caused the message to be transmitted. The complaint did not provide facts supporting a plausible inference that Postmates directly sent or participated in transmitting the text.

Vicarious liability

The court then considered whether Postmates could be held responsible for the sender’s conduct through an agency relationship. An agency relationship generally requires that the alleged agent act for the principal and that the principal have the right to control the agent’s actions.

The court found that Rogers’s allegations about Postmates, Bird Dog Media, LLC, and other possible intermediaries were unclear and too general to plausibly show that Postmates controlled the sender. The court also rejected Rogers’s arguments that the message’s references to Postmates, its delivery locations, its pay rate, and its link to a Postmates website established the necessary agency relationship. Those facts did not plausibly show that the sender had access to information or systems exclusively controlled by Postmates, authority to use Postmates’ name, or authorization to market on Postmates’ behalf.

The court further found that Rogers had not plausibly alleged that Postmates knew, or should have known, that the sender was violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or that Postmates knowingly accepted benefits from the sender’s conduct in a way that would amount to ratification. The court distinguished cases involving contracts, evidence, or more specific allegations of control and knowledge.

Disposition

The court found dismissal appropriate. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted Postmates’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Rogers’s First Amended Class Action Complaint with leave to amend.