In a recent decision, Judge Chad F. Kenney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a TCPA putative class action finding that the fax at issue was not an unsolicited advertisement on its face, as well as a pendant state claim for conversion of plaintiff’s fax machine. Mauthe v. Spreemo, Inc., et al., No. 18-1902-CFK, slip op. (E.D. Pa. Jan 28, 2019). Plaintiff Robert W. Maude, M.D., P.C., filed suit against Defendants Spreemo, Inc. and the Hartford Financial Services Group, alleging that defendants sent unsolicited faxes to him and a purported class of similarly-situated persons. At issue in the lawsuit was a single one-page fax sent in December 2016 which stated that defendant Spreemo was the “Primary Diagnostic Vendor” for Hartford. Plaintiff contended that the advertisement promoted “the availability and quality of Spreemo’s services,” a contention that defendants refuted. Finding that on its face the fax in question did not promote any goods or services, the Court careful reviewed the fax to determine whether it contained a “pretext for a larger advertising scheme” which would violate the TCPA. The Court cited plaintiff’s own argument to demonstrate that the purpose of the fax was to informits intended recipients, such as medical providers like plaintiff, that Spreemo is the primary diagnostic provider for any patients covered by Hartford insurance policies. The fax communicated that patients covered by Hartford insurance policies should submit requests for any diagnostic tests to Spreemo. The Court also looked beyond the language actually included in the fax to examine what language was not included in the fax, namely information on comparative pricing for services, information “touting” the quality of services, or information describing the ease of making an appointment or arrangements for services offered by Spreemo. The Court stated that the inclusion of such additional information “would take the fax beyond the realm of advertisement.” Holding that the fax was not an unsolicited advertisement on its face and did not contain and pretext for a larger advertising scheme, the Court determined that the fax was informational and therefore did not violate the TCPA, and dismissed plaintiff’s claims.