Skip to main content
Skip to footer site map
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine
Online Public Inspection File
Back to Search Results
Plaintiff brought suit based upon ten telemarketing calls made to his residential phone number. The Court found that the claims made under 47 CFR 64.1200(d)(4) does not provide for a private right of action, therefore Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted in those claims and dismissed counts 3-6. The Court found that of Plaintiff's claims under the Telephone Solicitation Sales Act, only the claims that Defendant had acted as a telephone solicitor without having first obtained a certificate or registration from the Attorney General and that Defendant acted as a telephone solicitor without having first obtained a surety bond had been timely filed. Additionally, the Court found that, pursuant to the holding in Charvat v. EchoStar Satellite, the TCPA did not confer exclusive jurisdiction of TCPA claims upon state courts and that Plaintiff's claims could proceed in federal court.
Privacy and Disclaimers
| © 2009 Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray