Papa John's Sued For Unwanted Pizza-Related Texts 418
jfruh writes "Nationwide pizza chain Papa John's is finding itself on the receiving end of a $250 million text spam lawsuit. From the article: 'Seattle law firm Heyrich Kalish McGuigan, representing three Papa John's customers, alleged that the pizza delivery service has sent 500,000 unwanted text messages to customers. If the court finds that Papa John's violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the pizza maker could have to pay damages of $500 per text message, or US$250 million, one of the largest damage awards under the 1991 law, the law firm said.
"Many customers complained to Papa John's that they wanted the text messages to stop, and yet thousands of spam text messages were sent week after week," Donald Heyrich, attorney for the plaintiffs said in a statement. "This should be a wake-up call to advertisers. Consumers do not want spam on their cell phones."'
Sounds like a Marketing-led clusterfuck (Score:5, Interesting)
What I imagine happened is this: A marketing firm contacts Papa John's marketing about spamming sms, convinces them its a great idea.
Marketing arm of Papa Johns goes ahead on its own, resulting in this case.
At no point was any technical, legal or compliance arm of Papa Johns consulted, where they would have found people who know about this stuff due to existing business relationships with above-board SMS platform providers who would have informed them of the legal requirements for operating a sms service (opt-ins, requirement for STOP handling, etc).
Anonymous because the stuff in bold is true.
This won't go to trial, it will be settled beforehand. The case is that unwinnable for Papa Johns.
Re:The law says... (Score:5, Interesting)
But of course there's a loop hole... one used by a company during this past election.
You don't spam the phone by sending text messages... you spam the phone by sending "emails" to
@
Such as 8145553345@vtext.com or whatever Verizon's service is. The company in Virginia that was doing this hasn't gone to trial yet but many see it as "breaking the spirit of the law but not actually the law its self".
Re:Papa John (Score:3, Interesting)
That would buy a lot of health care (Score:5, Interesting)
he pizza maker could have to pay damages of $500 per text message, or US$250 million, one of the largest damage awards under the 1991 law...
That would have bought some health care for their employees.
According to Forbes magazine, it would cost Papa Johns 5 cents per pizza to provide health care to their employees.
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/11/14/Forbes-Papa-Johns-ACA-cost-5-cents/UPI-54101352940627/ [upi.com]
It never was about the nickle and it never was. Most species of apes, specifically the males, assert their sexual dominance by keeping more of the good stuff - whatever that might be- for themselves than they can possibly use. This is so they can broadcast the fact of their dominance to females .
I think it's safe to say that the owner of Papa Johns is a physically unprepossessing specimen, basically he looks like some guy on your neighborhood watch.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/papa-johns-obamacare-will-raise-pizza-prices-131331.html [politico.com]
Without a mindset that causes him to spend his life seeking, acquiring hording and displaying his wealth, he'd never get laid, or at least, he would not get as laid as he feels he should be.
In making a show of denying those under him healthcare, and especially by talking about how little it would cost him to provide those benefits as per the article above his primordial mind is attempting to broadcast the fact of his sexual dominance / desirability to available females. That's what's going on here.
When shit as demented as "No nickle for healthcare !!!! " becomes that public and is even paraded around by the perps themselves, you have to go to waaaaay back in evolutionary time to find the part of their brain that's being activated.
It's amusing that the conservatives who deny evolution is real seem also to be the people whose motivations are most clearly amenable to forces governing basic evolutionary processes.
Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, (Score:1, Interesting)
The pizza drivers pay for the ingredients, lose from the lack of space in the oven for genuine customers' pizzas etc? The drivers are paid anyway - all they're losing is the tip. But yeah, if you work for that sort of company there'll be disadvantages at all levels.
Drivers buy their own gas and put miles on their own vehicles.
By the way, "Sam," you'd be committing fraud, and on the scale you're suggesting, there's no way it would be a misdemeanor.
Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Spam tastes great (Score:5, Interesting)
However if Papa John ignored their own "stop" requests they shouldn't be surprised if they get fined (mind you $500 per text is a bit excessive).
Why is $500 excessive for an act of harassment? I think you should also get a restraining order against them in the bargain, and if they send you one more text, the CEO gets jailed for 30 days.
Re:The law says... (Score:4, Interesting)
So how do you know if the customer is in another country?
Last time I travelled I paid more for text and call spam than what I spent myself with legitimate texts and calls (which were very few, not that I got hundreds of spam messages, but still).
Re:Papa John (Score:0, Interesting)
The negative score is telling about how much liberals like to suppress opposition. You basically said the exact thing as the +4 post you responded to (except to state a positive action,) and your post got modded as flamebait.
The fact that someone actually used one of their few mod points to hide your post is key to their insecurity.
Re:The FCC is soliciting comments on this topic. (Score:2, Interesting)
I disagree. I have filed comments on a number of things the FCC solicited public comments on. More so than many other government agencies, the FCC actually reads them and considers them. I'm nobody special, but they cited comments I made in their actual final rulings in two instances. Comments files on these things clearly do have an impact --- or at least have in the past.
Re:Papa John (Score:4, Interesting)
If it costs them an extra $50,000 a year to run a restaurant, many will be forced to lay people off, simply because they can't afford to pay them anymore. Some restaurants may even close. But somehow, in the new Amerika, this is progress?
It boggles the mind. Fix the problem within the healthcare system, then worry about forcing the poorest individuals to pay a tax if they don't have healthcare. But since it was packaged up and shoved in the sickly-sweet loving liberal exterior, it has to be good...and anyone who understands the real ramifications of the healthcare act is a very very bad person and/or a racist.
Re:Papa John (Score:0, Interesting)
in my area, they had semi-ok pizza but now that I know the ceo is like that chick-fil-a guy, I want no more part of them.
You mean he's a Republican? Because that's about the only similarity I can see between the two.
Papa John's is reacting to the new economic reality they face under the Obama regime. It's that simple. Obamacare will force them to cut hours and let people go. They know that. We know that. This has never changed since the concept was first floated. It's reality.
Now that they know they're not going to get a last minute reprieve from a sane administration, they're forced to go through with cost-cutting measures to meet the new economic realities they will face, rather than coasting on existing momentum in the hopes that a change of administration will restore sane economic policy.
Compare to Chick-fil-A, which merely pushes a moral agenda and a return to the values that made America the greatest nation on Earth. Sure, you might be against a return to American morality, and therefore against Chick-fil-A, but that has nothing to with Papa John's. Papa John's is reacting to basic economic reality.
Re:Papa John (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't help but picture this CEO as a 6-year-old who's been prevented from stealing his younger sister's toy and is now throwing a tantrum.
I am a libertarian. It should be a no-brainer for Republicans to attract my support (over the Democrats at least). Instead they're giving me and everyone else the finger with their absurd rhetoric and childish political games. This goes for their politicians, their pundits, and quite a few of their supporters. Everything Obama supports is automatically bad, even if it's the same thing the Republicans earlier supported.
This insane prioritization of winning vs. losing and minor social issues instead of real governance is why I agree with the sentiment of this post [slashdot.org]. The Republicans are a menace and must be stopped.
Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? (Score:4, Interesting)