A class action lawsuit filed today in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri claims Joplin-based Vintage Stock bombarded an Oklahoma City man and others with unsolicited robotext advertisements.
Chad Stapleton says he never gave permission for Vintage Stock to contact him and the robotexts violate the Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act of 2022.
The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile, Miami, Florida, and Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, Aventura, Florida.
From the petition:
Defendant is a Missouri-based “entertainment superstore” who touts itself as a retailer of “. . . the newest hit movies, music, and video games to the rarest comics, toys, and memorabilia . . .”
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in aggressive telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express written consent as required under the OTSA.
Defendant’s telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy.
The petition included a screenshot of the message, which was labeled as "spam" by Stapleton's phone, and said, "Our MEMORIAL DAY SALE starts tomorrow!"
Vintage Stock used a messaging platform to send the advertisements "which permitted Defendant to transmit blasts of text messages automatically and without any human involvement. The Platform automatically made a series of calls to Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ stored telephone numbers with no human involvement after the series of calls were initiated utilizing the Platform."
The petition calls for certification of the class action, damages and an injunction preventing Vintage Stock from making telephone sales calls unless the company follows the Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act.
Stapleton is asking for a jury trial.
This sounds too stupid to be true!
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of idiot would think this was going to be good for business?
They only send out one text a month, if that.
DeleteApparently that’s 1 to many
DeleteBut judge if we were breakng the law we were doing it only a little bit!
ReplyDeleteIs probably not necessarily a winning argument.