unsolicited advertisement,” see id. § 227(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(II). In enacting the TCPA, Congress’s intent “was to protect consumers from the nuisance, invasion of privacy, cost, and inconvenience that autodialed and prerecorded calls generate.” In re Rules Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Red. at 7979-80. Specifically, “Congress found that consumers consider these kinds of calls, regardless of the content or the initiator of the message, to be a nuisance and an invasion of privacy.” Id. at 7980 (internal quotations omitted). Congress therefore concluded that “banning such calls, except when made for an emergency purpose or when the called party consents to receiving the call, is the only effective means of protecting 539, 2015 WL 4600818 (W.D.Wash. July 29, 2015) (<HOLDING>); De Los Santos v. Millward Brown, Inc., No.
holding the defendant lacked any expectation of privacy in his cell so the jailer had the right to inspect anything in his cell holding that the plaintiff had standing because the defendant violated her privacy by making unsolicited automated calls to her cell phone holding that the plaintiff had constitutional standing because he received over fifty calls over three months from an automated caller holding seizure of arrestees cell phone lawful but finding the fourth amendment requires a warrant to perform a forensic search of the lawfully seized cell phone holding that the defendant debt collector was the equivalent of the party to whom the plaintiff had provided her cell phone number for purposes of the tcpa