Legal Opinion
Michael Conrad v. Hart Consumer Products
District Court, N.D. Alabama
Decided September 16, 2026No. 4:24-cv-00307Unknown
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION MICHAEL CONRAD, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:24-cv-307-CLM HART CONSUMER PRODUCTS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael Conrad put his cell phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry. Yet Hart Consumer Products texted Conrad several unwanted ads for tools. So Conrad sued Hart under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). Hart seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) because, Hart says, § 227(c)(5) creates a private right of action only for unwanted telephone calls, not unwanted text messages. (Doc. 23). For the reasons explained below,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bostock v. Clayton CountySupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. GomezSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- Facebook, Inc. v. DuguidSupreme Court of the United States · 2021
- John Salcedo v. Alex HannaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019
- Joseph B. Murphy v. DCI Biologicals Orlando, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2015
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.