![](\"https:\/\/s4745.pcdn.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/Screen-Shot-2019-09-11-at-5.10.08-PM-1024x575.png\")
<\/p>\nBy: Eric Richard<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Image source: https:\/\/roselawgroupreporter.com\/2019\/09\/ninth-circuit-strikes-down-montana-ban-on-political-robocalls\/<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve all been the victim of robocalls. Everybody knows what it\u2019s like to see an unknown number appear on their device, answer it for fear of missing an important message, only to be met with a voice on the other side that sounds like it was cobbled together from a bad sci-fi movie. Just this week, the 9th<\/sup> U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (the \u201cCourt\u201d) leveled a decision to ensure these calls will keep coming.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n This past Tuesday, September 10, 2019, the Court reversed a district court decision condoning Montana\u2019s Robocall Statute, thereby invalidating the law.[2]<\/a> Montana passed this robocall law in 1991, the same year the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act became effective.[3]<\/a> The federal law bars political robocalls to mobile devices without prior consent, but it does allow robocalls to contact individuals via landlines.[4]<\/a> By contrast, Montana\u2019s law comes with a $2,500 fine for robocalls to any landline or cellular device that are related to a political campaign, as well as robocalls that aim to sell a good or service, solicit information or gather data.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n In past decisions, the Court has actually upheld laws that restrict robocalls based on consumer protection regulations and for those that restricted the time, place, and manner of the robocalls.[6]<\/a> However, this most recent decision marks the limit as to how far the Court will go to regulate these types of calls.[7]<\/a> In striking down the statute, the Court explained that regulating robocalls based on their content presented a more severe threat to First Amendment freedoms than regulating their time, place, and manner.[8]<\/a> The Court also went on to say that prohibiting political robocalls strikes at the heart of the First Amendment\u2026as well as disproportionately disadvantages political candidates with fewer resources.\u201d[9]<\/a><\/p>\n Despite the past decisions advocating for regulating robocalls in accordance with specific parameters, the Court\u2019s decision this month is actually in line with other recent trends across jurisdictions.[10]<\/a> Specifically, the Court noted a 2015 decision by the 4th<\/sup> Circuit.[11]<\/a> There, a ban on all consumer and political robocalls was struck down in South Carolina because it was not narrowly tailored enough to protect the state\u2019s interest in protecting privacy.[12]<\/a> District courts in Wyoming and Arkansas have also held bans on political robocalls unconstitutional.[13]<\/a> The 7th<\/sup> Circuit did uphold an Indiana law regulating robocalls, but only because the statute did not discriminate by content and merely regulated who may be called.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n For those of us wanting increased protection from the incessant phone calls we receive almost daily, the Court\u2019s decision this month, along with the trend it represents, isn\u2019t encouraging. Some believe that the issue is primed for a Supreme Court decision, but the highest court in the land hasn\u2019t taken it up yet.[15]<\/a> Until then, we\u2019ll have to look jurisdiction by jurisdiction to see which states do and don\u2019t offer protection from robocalls, political or otherwise.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> See <\/em>Debra Weiss, Ban on political robocalls violates First Amendment, 9th<\/sup> Circuit rule<\/em>, A.B.A. J. (Sept. 11, 2019, 12:51 AM), http:\/\/www.abajournal.com\/news\/article\/ban-on-political-robocalls-violates-first-amendment-9th-circuit-rules.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> See <\/em>Victory Processing, LLC v. Fox, No. 18-35163, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27230 (9th Cir. Sep. 10, 2019)<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> See <\/em>Matt Volz, Court strikes down Montana law barring political robocall<\/em>, AP News (Sept. 10, 2019), https:\/\/www.apnews.com\/0cb788df7fe149f2847ab79ec7e3130b<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n [5]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n [6]<\/a> See <\/em>Karina Brown, Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Montana Ban on Political Robocalls<\/em>, Courthouse New Service (Sept. 10, 2019), https:\/\/www.courthousenews.com\/ninth-circuit-strikes-down-montana-ban-on-political-robocalls\/<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n [8]<\/a> See <\/em>Victory Processing, LLC v. Fox, No. 18-35163 at *4.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> See id <\/em>at *5.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> See <\/em>Weiss, supra <\/em>note 1.<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n [12]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n [13]<\/a> See <\/em>Volz, supra <\/em>note 3.<\/p>\n