of the [TCPA] as ... ‘invasions of privacy’ under the ordinary, lay meaning[] of the phrase[].” Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lou Fusz Auto. Network, Inc., 401 F.3d 876, 881 (8th Cir.2005). The policy here does not limit coverage to damages arising from specific causes of action but instead covers advertising injuries arising from a violation of the “right of privacy.” The complaint in the underlying lawsuit alleged that Autopia violated the TCPA, averring that “[Autopiaos faxes unlawfully interrupted Plaintiffs and other class members’ privacy interests in being left alone.” (Def. Mem. in Supp. Ex. B ¶ 27.) In the Court’s view, this is more than sufficient. See Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Swiderski Elecs., Inc., 223 Ill.2d 352, 307 Ill.Dec. 653, 860 N.E.2d 307, 317 (Ill.2006) (<HOLDING>). The TCPA claims at issue involved violations
holding that even where the underlying complaint made no mention of the right of privacy a violation of privacy  is implicit in a tcpa faxad claim holding that new york law has no common law right of privacy embracmg such claims as false light as any such privacy right is purely statutory recognizing that violation of privacy right even without objective harm is still compensable holding that while an individual has a right to possess obscene material in the privacy of his home there is no corresponding privacy right to purchase such material holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records