Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc.
Decision Date | 03 February 2017 |
Docket Number | August Term, 2015,Docket No. 15–288–CV |
Citation | 847 F.3d 92 |
Parties | PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, Medica, Inc., Defendants–Appellees, John Does, 1–10, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
GLENN L. HARA (Aytan Y. Bellin, Bellin & Associates LLC, White Plains, NY, on the brief ), Anderson & Wanda, White Plains, NY, for Plaintiff–Appellant .
THOMAS D. GOLDBERG (Bryan J. Orticelli, Day Pitney LLP, Stamford, CT, Matthew H. Geelan, Donahue, Durham & Noonan, P.C., Guilford, CT, on the brief ), Day Pitney LLP, Stamford, CT, for Defendants–Appellees .
Before: WINTER, JACOBS, and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
Physicians Healthsource appeals from Judge Underhill's dismissal of its class action complaint asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the TCPA). The complaint alleges that appellees (collectively "Boehringer") sent an unsolicited fax invitation for a free dinner meeting to discuss ailments relating to appellees' business. According to appellant, this fax constituted an "unsolicited advertisement" prohibited by the TCPA.
Judge Underhill dismissed appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim—holding that no facts were pled that plausibly showed that the fax had a commercial purpose. While we agree that a fax must have a commercial purpose to be an "unsolicited advertisement," we hold that the district court improperly dismissed appellant's complaint. Where it is alleged that a firm sent an unsolicited fax promoting a free event discussing a subject related to the firm's business, the complaint is sufficient to state a claim.
We therefore vacate and remand.
In reviewing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of a complaint, we accept all factual allegations as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002).
Id. The fax provided registration details and revealed that the speaker at the dinner meeting would be David Portman, MD.
On March 30, 2014, appellant filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of more than forty individuals against Boehringer, alleging that the fax violated the TCPA as an "unsolicited advertisement" without a proper opt-out notice. Id. at 11. According to the complaint, the fax was an "unsolicited advertisement" because it "promote[d] the services and goods of [Boehringer]." Id. Appellant sought an award of statutory damages in the minimum amount of $500 for each violation of the TCPA, and to have such damages trebled. Appellant also requested injunctive relief to enjoin Boehringer from sending similar faxes in the future.
Boehringer moved to dismiss, arguing that appellant failed to state a claim under the TCPA because the unsolicited fax was not an advertisement. In its motion to dismiss, Boehringer asked the district court to take judicial notice of public records of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—a request that was unopposed and that the court granted. These records showed that, at the time it faxed appellant, Boehringer had submitted for approval by the FDA to market a drug named Flibanserin. The drug was intended to treat HSDD. Because Flibanserin had yet to be approved by the FDA, Boehringer was forbidden to promote it. See 21 C.F.R. § 312.7(a) ( ).
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 3:14–CV–405 (SRU), 2015 WL 144728, at *6 (D. Conn. Jan. 12, 2015). The court interpreted Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations as "requir[ing] plaintiffs to show that [an unsolicited] fax has a commercial pretext" for it to violate the TCPA. Id. at *3. The court determined that "[n]othing in the [f]ax indicates that the dinner was a pretext for pitching a Boehringer product or service." Id. at *5. The court noted that, "[e]ven drawing the inference that Boehringer sponsored the dinner in order to inform potential future prescribers of Flibanserin about the existence and nature of HSDD, the hypothetical future economic benefit that the Boehringer defendants might receive someday does not transform the [f]ax into an advertisement." Id.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citations omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).
Under the TCPA, it is unlawful for "any person within the United States" to send a fax that is an "unsolicited advertisement"—unless, inter alia, the fax has an opt-out notice meeting certain requirements. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). The Act creates a private right of action, providing for statutory damages in the amount of $500 for each violation as well as injunctive relief against future violations. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).
Id. The Rule itself comports with the statutory language, which defines offending advertisements as those promoting "the commercial availability or quality of [the firm's] property, goods, or services." 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5).
The district court interpreted the Rule as "requir[ing] plaintiffs to show that the fax has a commercial pretext—i.e., ‘that the defendant advertised, or planned to advertise, its products or services at the seminar.’ " Physicians Healthsource, 2015 WL 144728, at *3 (quoting Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Richmond, the Am. Int'l Univ. in London, Inc., No. 13–CV–4564 (CS), 2014 WL 4626230, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2014) ). We do not disagree. But, at the pleading stage, where it is alleged that a firm sent an unsolicited fax promoting a free seminar discussing a subject that relates to the firm's products or services, there is a plausible conclusion that the fax had the commercial purpose of promoting those products or services. Businesses are always eager to promote their wares and usually do not fund...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sharp v. Ally Fin., Inc., 6:15-CV-06520 EAW
...endorsed the remedial nature of the TCPA in the context of pleading requirements. See Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc. , 847 F.3d 92, 96 (2d Cir. 2017) (" ‘Because the TCPA is a remedial statute, it should be construed to benefit consumers.’ " (quoting Gage......
- Robert W. Mauthe MD PC v. Millennium Health LLC
-
W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc.
...the use of certain methods of communication: telephone calls and faxes. Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 847 F.3d 92, 99-100 (2d Cir. 2017) (Leval, J., concurring). The CAN-SPAM Act regulates the use of electronic mail. Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.......
-
Hendrix v. Pactiv LLC
...papers.’ " D'Alessandro v. City of New York , 713 Fed.Appx. 1, 11 n.12 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc. , 847 F.3d 92, 94 (2d Cir. 2017), and quoting Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP , 152 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 1998) ). Second, even if th......