On September 5, Judge Dlott (Southern District of Ohio) denied
plaintiff's motion for class certification in a case involving
the "junk fax" provision of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991. Perhaps perplexed that such cases still
arise, the district court explained that, "[a]lthough it seems
odd that the problem persists in the electronic age, the 'junk
fax' provision attempts to curb the inundation of unwanted
faxes." In this case, there was no dispute that plaintiff
received an unsolicited one-page fax from defendant in October
2015. There also was no dispute that defendant sent 34,773 faxes
during a two-day period within which plaintiff received the
unsolicited fax.
Therefore, plaintiff sought to represent a class comprised of
all 34,773 recipients of those faxes. The district court denied
certification, finding that "common questions of law or fact
do not predominate over questions affecting only individual
members." The district court emphasized that
