## Facts

- Retail Relief, LLC retained U.S. Sterling Securities, Inc. and Michelle Orr and Shawn Orr to market Retail Relief’s services.
- Unsolicited advertising faxes promoting Retail Relief were sent to recipients, including Aharon Weber.
- Weber alleged the faxes were sent without his prior express invitation or permission and lacked the required opt-out notice.
- Weber sued Sterling and the Orrs under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), seeking statutory damages for unsolicited fax advertisements.
- Although the faxing was undertaken for Retail Relief, Weber alleged Sterling and the Orrs personally participated in or authorized the fax transmissions.

## Issues

1. Whether the TCPA permits personal liability against LLC members/officers (or corporate officers) who personally participate in or authorize unsolicited fax advertisements sent on behalf of the entity.
2. Whether the pleadings and summary-judgment record created a genuine issue of material fact as to Sterling’s and the Orrs’ personal participation or authorization, precluding summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Sterling and the Orrs.
- The court held that individuals may be personally liable under the TCPA when they personally participate in or directly authorize the sending of unlawful fax advertisements, even if acting for an LLC.
- The court concluded the record contained sufficient allegations and evidence to raise material fact disputes about the defendants’ involvement in the fax campaign.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The TCPA authorizes suit against any “person or entity” that sends or causes unsolicited fax advertisements to be sent; this can include natural persons.
- Limited-liability protections bar vicarious liability for an entity’s debts and obligations but do not immunize individuals from liability for their own wrongful acts, including statutory violations they commit or authorize.
- Personal liability in this context rests on the individual’s own conduct (direct participation or authorization), not on veil-piercing.
- Summary judgment is improper where evidence, viewed favorably to the nonmovant, permits a reasonable finding that defendants authorized, directed, or participated in the unlawful transmissions.

## Conclusion

The court held that TCPA claims may proceed against LLC members or officers who personally participated in or authorized unsolicited fax advertising, and it reversed summary judgment because factual disputes existed regarding the defendants’ direct involvement in the fax transmissions.


Weber v. U.S. Sterling Sec., Inc., 282 Conn. 722, 924 A.2d 816 (Conn. 2007)