Carrodine v. FlatIron Media LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-09660
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Carrodine v. FlatIron Media, Judge Furman denied Flatiron’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim.
The ruling allows the plaintiffs’ claims against Flatiron to proceed past the pleading stage; Flatiron must answer unless the court orders otherwise. The opinion does not decide whether Flatiron is ultimately liable under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
What happened
Carrodine v. FlatIron Media is a proposed class action by Jason Carrodine, Eli Reisman, and Kimberly Hudson against Flatiron Media, LLC and HasE.com LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that HasTraffic sent spam text messages offering gas cards and prizes, and that the messages violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Flatiron asked the court to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that Flatiron was directly or indirectly responsible for the messages. The plaintiffs’ allegations included that Flatiron controlled some of HasTraffic’s marketing activities and that the messages linked to Flatiron websites.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Flatiron’s motion to dismiss. He ruled that the allegations were sufficient at this stage to support a possible agency relationship in which HasTraffic acted with Flatiron’s authority, and directed Flatiron to file an answer within two weeks.
The detailed version
- Carrodine v. FlatIron Media LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09660
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 27, 2023
Background
Jason Carrodine, Eli Reisman, and Kimberly Hudson brought this proposed class action against Flatiron Media, LLC (“Flatiron”) and HasE.com LLC (“HasTraffic”). They alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal law regulating certain telephone calls and text messages.
Flatiron moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows a defendant to seek dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Flatiron argued that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged either direct liability or vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is responsibility for another party’s conduct, such as an agent’s conduct. The opinion states that the plaintiffs effectively conceded the direct-liability argument, while disputing the vicarious-liability argument.
Allegations supporting vicarious liability
The plaintiffs alleged that Flatiron and HasTraffic entered a services contract; that Flatiron agreed to pay HasTraffic based on the number of leads or the amount of traffic generated; and that Flatiron retained substantial control over HasTraffic’s marketing activities. They also alleged that HasTraffic sent thousands of spam text messages on Flatiron’s behalf, that the messages led consumers to Flatiron websites, and that an advertiser could control and preapprove the text used in the messages.
The court acknowledged that whether the First Amended Complaint plausibly alleged an agency relationship was a close question, noting that other courts had reached different conclusions on similar allegations. But accepting the pleaded allegations as true, the court concluded that they were enough to support an inference that HasTraffic acted as Flatiron’s agent and had Flatiron’s actual authority when sending the allegedly unlawful texts.
Ruling and next steps
Judge Furman denied Flatiron’s motion to dismiss. The court directed Flatiron to file its answer within two weeks unless the court later ordered otherwise. It also reinstated and rescheduled the initial pretrial conference for December 20, 2023, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion docket entry.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.