in Newswire Published on June 22, 2023

Chili’s Ignored Consumers’ ‘Do Not Call’ Requests, Class Action Says

Last Updated on July 5, 2023

Garza v. Brinker International Inc.

Filed: June 20, 2023 ◆§ 2:23-cv-04848

A class action claims the operator of Chili’s engages in an unlawful telemarketing campaign through which it repeatedly sends spam text messages to numbers listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.

Defendant(s)

Brinker International, Inc. Chili's

Law(s)

Telephone Consumer Protection Act

State(s)

California

Categories

Privacy

A proposed class action claims the operator of Chili’s engages in an unlawful telemarketing campaign through which it repeatedly sends spam text messages to numbers listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry despite recipients’ opt-out requests.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

The 17-page lawsuit alleges Brinker International Inc. has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal law that prohibits the initiation of telephone solicitations to individuals who have listed their phone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The case also contends that, in further violation of the TCPA, the owner of the national restaurant chain failed to honor do-not-call requests within a reasonable time after the request was made.

The plaintiff, a California resident whose phone number has been on the Do-Not-Call Registry since 2003, says he initially opted into the Chili’s text campaign on March 10, 2023 so he could receive a free order of chips while at the restaurant. On March 31 and May 25, the plaintiff notified Chili’s that he no longer wished to receive promotional text messages by sending a text that read “Stop,” the suit relays.

Although Chili’s acknowledged the requests by informing the plaintiff that he would be unsubscribed from its text alerts, the restaurant nevertheless sent him at least three more robotexts throughout June, the complaint contends.

According to the filing, the defendant “deliberately programmed its telephone dialing systems to continue sending telemarketing messages to consumers months after receiving a ‘Stop’ request,” even though consumers have expressly revoked their consent to be contacted.

“In addition to using Plaintiff’s residential cellular data, phone storage, and battery life, Plaintiff’s privacy was wrongfully invaded, and Plaintiff has become understandably aggravated with having to deal with the frustration of repeated, unwanted text messages, forcing Plaintiff to divert attention away from other activities,” the case says.

The lawsuit looks to represent the following class:

“All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action (1) were sent text messages by or on behalf of Defendant; (2) more than one time within any 12-month period; (3) where the person’s telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of Defendant’s products and/or services; and (5) where either (a) Defendant did not obtain prior express written consent to message the person or (b) the called person previously advised Defendant to ‘stop’ messaging them in any combination of upper and lower case letters.”

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

Case Spotlight

Hair Relaxer Lawsuits

Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.

Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits