## Facts

- The U.S. Navy hired Campbell-Ewald Co., an advertising contractor, to assist with a recruiting campaign that included text-message outreach.
- The Navy approved the text program on the condition that messages be sent only to individuals who had “opted in” to receive marketing solicitations including Navy-related topics.
- Campbell-Ewald subcontracted implementation to Mindmatics LLC, which compiled phone numbers and sent more than 100,000 recruiting texts.
- Jose Gomez received a Navy recruiting text message; he alleged he did not consent to receive it and was not within the targeted age range.
- Gomez sued Campbell-Ewald in federal court under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), seeking statutory damages and an injunction, and brought the case as a putative class action.
- Before class certification, Campbell-Ewald made a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment offering damages and an injunction that it characterized as complete relief; Gomez did not accept.

## Issues

1. Whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of complete relief moots a plaintiff’s individual claim under Article III.
2. Whether such an offer, made before class certification, moots related putative class claims.
3. Whether a federal contractor is entitled to derivative sovereign immunity under Yearsley when the alleged conduct exceeds the Government’s authorization.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit.
- An unaccepted Rule 68 offer or settlement offer, even for complete relief, does not moot the plaintiff’s claim; once rejected, it has no legal effect and the parties remain adverse.
- Because the individual claim was not moot, the action (including the putative class component) remained justiciable.
- Campbell-Ewald was not entitled to derivative sovereign immunity because its authority was limited to sending texts to individuals who had opted in; sending a text to a nonconsenting recipient would exceed that authority.
- The Court did not decide whether a defendant could moot a case by actually tendering the full amount of relief (e.g., depositing funds) and seeking entry of judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff’s claim is not mooted by an unaccepted offer of judgment or settlement offer; rejected offers create no continuing rights or obligations and do not eliminate Article III adversity.
- Defendants cannot end litigation unilaterally by offering complete relief that the plaintiff does not accept, including in a putative class action before certification.
- Under Yearsley, derivative sovereign immunity for federal contractors applies only when the Government validly authorizes the conduct and the contractor acts within the scope of that authorization.
- A contractor that violates federal law and exceeds the Government’s explicit instructions is not shielded by derivative sovereign immunity.

## Conclusion

The Court held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of complete relief does not moot a plaintiff’s TCPA claim, and it denied derivative sovereign immunity where the contractor allegedly acted beyond the Government’s limited authorization to contact only opt-in recipients.


Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016)