Court Certifies Class in Text Message Suit Against Papa John’s
Time 2 Minute Read

On November 9, 2012, a federal District Court in Washington certified a national class and a Washington state sub-class in an action alleging that Papa John’s International, Inc. (“Papa John’s”) violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by sending unsolicited text messages advertising its pizza products. The court determined that plaintiffs had standing and satisfied all other requirements for class certification.

The TCPA is a federal privacy law that imposes restrictions on telephone solicitations, including telemarketing calls and text messages. Plaintiffs alleged that Papa John’s and its franchisees sent customers unsolicited text messages with promotional codes for future purchases of Papa John’s products. Furthermore, plaintiffs claimed that Papa John’s did not obtain customers’ consent before sending the text messages.

According to the complaint, certain Papa John’s franchisees provided the marketing company OnTime4U with lists of telephone numbers of individuals who had purchased pizza from them. OnTime4U then sent text messages advertising Papa John’s products and services to the cell phone numbers on those lists. Although there was no evidence that Papa John’s directly contracted with OnTime4U, the court observed that preliminary discovery supported plaintiffs’ claim that Papa John’s directed, encouraged and authorized its franchisees to use OnTime4U’s services. The class certification was based in part on the court’s determination that assessing liability will involve common questions of law and fact, including whether an “established business relationship” between Papa John’s and the customers would be a defense to sending unsolicited texts without express consent under the TCPA.

Read our previous coverage of class action suits alleging violations of the TCPA.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court decision determined that documents created by a criminal defendant using AI and subsequently shared with legal counsel were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In USA v. Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York compelled the disclosure of 31 documents created with Anthropic’s Claude. This order was issued despite the defendant including information from counsel in the AI tool’s input and later providing the resulting outputs to his attorneys. The ruling offers early judicial perspective on privilege concerns involving AI-generated materials, an area where case law remains sparse.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court ruling held that AI-generated documents prepared by a defendant and later shared with legal counsel were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page