California federal courts saw a pair of new suits filed by the same plaintiff on the same day against Marriott International and Gallup Inc. Both suits claimed that the hotel chain and the polling company made unsolicited calls to Jason Hartley's cellphone number despite the fact that it was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since December 2004.

Marriott repeatedly called the number with marketing for vacations or rewards, in one case with a prerecorded message congratulating Hartley on being drawn as a winner in a contest. The plaintiff also asserted that although he answered one of the calls and selected the option to be placed on an internal do not call list, he received yet another phone call.

As for Gallup, Hartley claimed he was "frustrated and distressed" that the company "harassed" him with a call using an automatic telephone dialing system. Both suits seek to represent a nationwide class of plaintiffs estimated to number "in the several thousands," requesting statutory damages for negligent as well as knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA.

To read the complaint in Hartley v. Marriott International, Inc., click here.

To read the complaint in Hartley v. Gallup, Inc., click here.

Why it matters: TCPA class actions continue to be on the rise, underscoring the importance of good compliance to ward off such claims. Moreover, the complaint against Gallup shows that the need for compliance is not limited to companies which make marketing calls, but rather, all companies which utilize telephonic communications as part of their business.

For further information on this topic please contact Christine Reilly at Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP's Los Angeles office by telephone (+1 310 312 4000) or email ([email protected]). Alternatively, contact Diana L Eisner at Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP's Washington DC office by telephone (+1 202 585 6550) or email ([email protected]). The Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP website can be accessed at‚Äč.

This update has been reproduced in its original format from Lexology –