that summary judgment be granted in its favor because it has presented uncontested evidence that “Plaintiff invited her own harm” and sought out “a known or obvious danger” by intentionally purchasing the cell phones. (Id. at 22-23 (internal quotations omitted).) In her sur-reply, Plaintiff argues that her intent is irrelevant because bad-faith defenses are inapplicable to the TCPA. (ECF No. 64 at 4-5, 7-9.) She also asserts that the doctrines of assumption of the risk and volenti non fi the common law affirmative defenses of assumption] of the risk and volen-ti non fit injuria apply to the TCPA. The Court will therefore follow the FCC’s July 10, 2015, rules and regulations implementing the TCPA. See Morse v. Allied Interstate, LLC, No. 3:13-CV-625, 2014 WL 2916480 (M.D.Pa.2014) (<HOLDING>). See also Leyse v. Clear Channel Broad, Inc.,
holding that order could be appealed because ajlthough the district court did not make an express finding there is no doubt that the district court intended its orders to be final judgments for purposes of appeal holding that the plaintiffs did not fall within the zone of interests protected by the tcpa because they attempted to use the statute in a way not intended or contemplated by congress and because their damages are not of the vexatious and intrusive nuisance nature sought to be redressed by congress in enacting the tcpa holding that a district court may not disregard the fccs final orders simply because congress did not specifically grant the fcc express authority to regulate a specific subsection of the tcpa holding that the fcc may consistent with american telephone bar collateral challenges to other fcc orders in proceedings brought to adjudicate applications to provide inregion long distance service holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders