## Facts

- Gregory S. Reichenbach received a prerecorded call on his residential line from Precision Windshield Repair, operated by Chung Holdings, LLC.
- The message promoted windshield repair services, stated repairs were “absolutely free” in most cases, and invited the recipient to press a key to speak with a “repair specialist” or to call a toll-free number.
- After interacting with the automated options, Reichenbach received a live follow-up call from a Precision employee and also spoke with the owner, Hyek “Corey” Chung.
- In the live call, the employee confirmed that a computer placed the initial prerecorded call and confirmed the business’s contact information.
- Reichenbach requested placement on the company’s do-not-call list and requested a written copy of the company’s do-not-call policy.
- The company did not provide a written do-not-call policy.
- Reichenbach sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and FCC implementing regulations, alleging (1) an unlawful unsolicited prerecorded advertisement to a residential line and (2) unlawful failure to maintain/provide a written do-not-call policy.
- The trial court denied Reichenbach’s partial-summary-judgment motion and granted summary judgment to Chung Holdings, LLC.

## Issues

1. Whether the TCPA permits a private action based on a single prerecorded or automated call to a residential line.
2. Whether the prerecorded message could qualify as an “unsolicited advertisement” under the TCPA and FCC regulations.
3. Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Chung Holdings, LLC was responsible for initiating the prerecorded call.
4. Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the company violated TCPA/FCC rules by failing to provide a written do-not-call policy on request.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment for Chung Holdings, LLC and remanded.
- The court held the TCPA’s private right of action is not limited to multiple calls; a single prerecorded call may be actionable if it violates the statute.
- The court held the message could be an “unsolicited advertisement” because it promoted the commercial availability of services, even though it directed the recipient to press a key or call back.
- The court found the record created a triable issue regarding whether the company initiated or was responsible for the prerecorded call, given the follow-up call and admissions about computer dialing.
- The court found a triable issue on the do-not-call-policy claim because evidence indicated the company did not provide the requested written policy as required by FCC rules.

## Legal Principles

- The TCPA authorizes a private action in state court for receipt of a call made in violation of TCPA restrictions; the remedy is not conditioned on repeated calls.
- A prerecorded telemarketing message may constitute an “unsolicited advertisement” when it promotes goods or services and encourages the recipient to connect with the seller (including via keypad response or call-back).
- Summary judgment is improper where evidence permits competing inferences on whether a defendant initiated or was responsible for an automated/prerecorded call.
- FCC do-not-call regulations require telemarketers to maintain a written do-not-call policy and provide it upon request; noncompliance may support liability under the TCPA framework.

## Conclusion

The court held that a single prerecorded promotional call to a residential line can support a TCPA claim and that disputes about the call’s advertising character, the caller’s responsibility, and failure to provide a written do-not-call policy precluded summary judgment for the defendant.


Reichenbach v. Chung Holdings, LLC, 159 Ohio App. 3d 79, 823 N.E.2d 29 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2004)