In Bridgeview Health Care Center, Ltd. v. Clark, Nos. 14-3728, 15-1793 (7th Cir. Mar. 21, 2016), plaintiffs brought an action for violation of the TCPA. Defendant Clark had authorized a vendor to send 100 faxes to local businesses within a 20-mile radius. In fact, the vendor sent nearly 5,000 faxes to businesses in a four state region. The defendant was only liable for those faxes sent “on its behalf.” The court concluded Clark had not authorized the vendor to send faxes outside the 20-mile zone. Thus, the claim was properly limited to those faxes sent within that area. Clark argued the district court should have created a subclass of plaintiffs within the 20-mile zone, and inasmuch as the named plaintiff was from outside that zone and, it could not adequately represent the 24 businesses who received the 32 faxes sent within the 20 mile radius. The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument. Despite not being entitled to recover, the named plaintiff was not distracted from its representation by advocating arguments unique to it. Instead, plaintiff was in the same position as the majority of fax recipients and the fact that it did not ultimately recover did not prevent the district court from finding it adequately represented plaintiffs who did. The court declined to decertify, holding decertification would not affect Clark’s liability to any plaintiff, and the judgment was appropriately limited to recipients within the 20-mile zone.