Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez
Headline: Unaccepted settlement offers do not moot TCPA lawsuits, and federal contractors are not immune when they violate federal law or government instructions, keeping class claims and damages actions alive.
Holding: An unaccepted settlement offer does not make a plaintiff’s case moot, and a federal contractor may not claim the Government’s immunity when it violates federal law or explicit government instructions.
- Keeps TCPA class and individual claims alive despite unaccepted settlement offers.
- Stops contractors from using government contracts to claim blanket immunity for TCPA violations.
- Allows defendants to moot claims only by actually ensuring plaintiffs can obtain the offered relief.
Summary
Background
A private advertising firm working for the Navy hired a subcontractor to send recruiting text messages to people who had “opted in.” One message reached Jose Gomez, who says he never consented and was not in the targeted age group. Gomez filed a nationwide class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), seeking trebled statutory damages and an injunction. Campbell-Ewald offered to pay Gomez’s individual damages and costs under Rule 68, Gomez did not accept, and the offer lapsed. The District Court later granted summary judgment for Campbell-Ewald based on a claimed derivative sovereign immunity; the Ninth Circuit reversed and the Supreme Court agreed to review the questions.
Reasoning
The Court addressed two main questions. First, it held that an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment has no legal force and therefore does not make a plaintiff’s case moot; the parties remain adverse and the court retains jurisdiction. Second, the Court rejected a sweeping immunity for federal contractors. Yearsley shields a contractor only when it validly follows the Government’s directions; if a contractor exceeds authority or violates federal law or explicit instructions, no derivative sovereign immunity protects it. The record showed the Navy had authorized messages only to opted-in recipients, and the Court found no immunity where a contractor may have disobeyed that rule.
Real world impact
The ruling lets plaintiffs continue individual and class TCPA claims despite rejected settlement offers. Contractors cannot avoid TCPA liability merely by pointing to a government contract when they violate the law or specific government instructions. The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit and returned the case for further proceedings; it did not decide hypothetical situations where a defendant actually deposits full payment for the plaintiff.
Dissents or concurrances
JUSTICE THOMAS agreed with the outcome but relied on common-law tender history. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS and JUSTICE ALITO dissented, arguing offers that fully satisfy a claim should moot the case, focusing on the defendant’s ability and willingness to pay.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?