in Newswire Published on September 20, 2022

Urban Outfitters Hit With Class Action Over Alleged Spam Texts

Tooley v. Urban Outfitters, Inc

Filed: September 15, 2022 ◆§ 6:22-cv-01686

A proposed class action claims that Urban Outfitters has sent automated text messages to consumers without prior written consent.

Defendant(s)

Urban Outfitters, Inc.

Law(s)

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Florida Telephone Solicitation Act

State(s)

Florida

A proposed class action claims that Urban Outfitters has sent automated text messages to consumers without prior written consent.

The 19-page complaint, the clothing retailer failed to secure permission before transmitting automated “blasts of text messages” to promote its products. The case also claims that Urban Outfitters has been illegally contacting cell phone numbers listed under the National Do Not Call Registry.

The case alleges that between June 19 and June 30, 2022, the plaintiff was “bombarded” with promotional text messages from a number owned and operated by Urban Outfitters:

Per the complaint, the plaintiff’s cell phone number has been registered on the National Do Not Call registry since 2009. The case contends that these text messages violate the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which states that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”

Additionally, the complaint alleges that Urban Outfitters’ spam texts are not permitted under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA) because solicitor must secure prior written consent before sending a consumer automated messages.

The lawsuit contends that the plaintiff never authorized Urban Outfitters to contact their cell phone number, and alleges similar spam texts have been sent to individuals residing in Florida and throughout the United States.

As the complaint tells it, these text messages have caused the plaintiff “harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and wasted time.”

The lawsuit looks to represent the following classes:

“All persons in Florida who (1) were sent a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant’s goods and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff, within the time period of four years prior to the filing of the original Complaint through the date on which an Order granting class certification is entered.”

“All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action (1) were sent a call or text message 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 selling Defendant’s products and services; and (5) for whom Defendant claims (a) it did not obtain prior express written consent, or (b) it obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior express written consent to call the Plaintiff.”

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

Case Spotlight