under section 227(c).” Id. at 6590 n. 124. The FCC further explained that a seller may face vicarious liability “under a broad range of agency principles, including not only formal agency, but also principles of apparent authority and ratification.” Id. at 6584 ¶ 28. The Courts have diverged on the appropriate deference that should be accorded Dish Network and prior FCC rulings in this area under Chevron USA Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Compare Gomez, 768 F.3d at 878 (“Because Congress has not spoken directly to this issue and because the FCC’s interpretation [of the TCPA in Dish Network ] was included in a fully adjudicated declaratory ruling, the interpretation must be afforded Chevron deference.”) with Mais, 944 F.Supp.2d at 1243 (<HOLDING>) and Toney v. Quality Res., Inc., 75 F.Supp.3d
holding that because the fcc is authorized to promulgate binding legal rules and it issued the order under review in the exercise of that authority its interpretation of the communications act was entitled to chevron deference holding that the common law principle of vicarious liability applied to the tcpa because absent a clear expression of congressional intent to apply another standard the court must presume that congress intended to apply the traditional standards of vicarious liability with which it is presumed to be familiar holding that a prior fcc ruling regarding vicarious liability under section 227b was not entitled to chevron defer ence because it contradicted the tcpas plain language holding that vicarious coconspirator liability need not be charged in the indictment holding regulations entitled to chevron deference