Case No. 17-1705 | 4th Cir.
Preview by Michael Fischer, Online Editor
PDR Network (“PDR”) is the publisher of the Physicians’ Desk Reference, a compendium of prescribing information for prescription drugs, which compiles and reprints the drug labeling or package insert accompanying drug products. After launching a digital eBook version of the book in 2013, PDR sent a fax message to Carlton & Harris, a West Virginia chiropractic office, offering them a free copy. Carlton & Harris subsequently filed a putative class action lawsuit in federal court against PDR pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (2012), which creates a cause of action for consumers who receive unsolicited fax advertisements. PDR countered that the fax was not an unsolicited advertisement since they merely were offering a copy of the desk reference at no cost. However, Carlton & Harris note that in 2006 the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) interpreted the term “unsolicited advertisement” to include goods and services offered free of charge.
The district court granted PDR’s motion to dismiss, holding that PDR’s fax did not have a commercial aim and that they were not bound to follow the FCC’s interpretation of the term “commercial advertisement.” On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, finding that the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012), requires district courts to adhere to orders like the FCC’s 2006 ruling. PDR appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on November 13, 2018. The question before the Court is whether the Hobbs Act required the district court to accept the FCC’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Petitioner PDR argues that the district court was not precluded from offering their interpretation of the term in question since the Hobbs Act only addresses suits brought against the government for relief from unlawful agency action and because the Administrative Procedure Act allows a defendant to challenge agency actions in a judicial enforcement proceeding. Brief for Petitioner at 18–24, PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., No. 17-1705 (U.S. filed Jan. 8, 2019). Alternatively, they assert that the FCC’s determination amounted to an interpretive rule, not a legislative rule, and as such was not binding on the courts. Id. at 45. In response, Respondent Carlton & Harris Chiropractic contends that the district court was in fact obligated to follow the FCC’s interpretation since the plain language of the Hobbs Act prohibits a district court from deciding the validity of a final order like the one issued by the FCC in 2006. Brief for Respondent at 11, PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, No. 17-1705 (U.S. filed Feb. 7, 2019). Furthermore, Respondent argues that the Hobbs Act’s jurisdictional limitations are not limited to actions against the government since the Court, in Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 322 (1981), has applied it in lawsuits between private entities. Id. at 24.