ST Alpha - "I'm missing information then because I thought it said she had to check a box to waive the robocall exclusion rights, not just give her phone number. " (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 154

I'm missing information then because I thought it said she had to check a box to waive the robocall exclusion rights, not just give her phone number.

Posted by pmb (aka pmb) Aug 23 '13, 08:07

But even so, if the initial waiver was deemed sufficient to grant the waiver by giving the number then it undercuts your argument that there was no explicit waiver. I don't think you can have it both ways. The better argument would be that no waiver was given in the first place (and I'd buy that argument unless the statute explicitly says giving your number constitutes a waiver). But I'm more sympathetic in a consumer context if the waiver was not explained (via a check the box) on the contract.

Responses:

[deleted] 1
- a) The description did not make clear that it was a "silent" waiver. If you want better analysis of the cases you need to give more explicit factual - pmb Aug 23, 08:20

Post a message top

I'm missing information then because I thought it said she had to check a box to waive the robocall exclusion rights, not just give her phone number.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.