Text messaging is now one of the predominant modes of communication. Because of this popularity, businesses and fraudsters alike are now consistently communicating with and targeting consumers by text, leading to an uncountable amount of unsolicited text messages. Courts across the country are grappling with how to remedy a wide range of injuries resulting from these messages. As outlined in Article III of the Constitution and later clarified by the Supreme Court in Spokeo v. Robins, to bring a case in federal court, plaintiffs must assert standing. With unsolicited text messages impacting millions of Americans, adequately asserting standing proves to be a significant hurdle. This note argues that plaintiffs will find the best success through use of the public nuisance doctrine’s special injury rule. The special injury rule allows plaintiffs who experience injuries similar to those suffered by the general public to recover so long as they can show that their injury differs from the injury to the general public in a specific way. Not only will this solution provide aggrieved plaintiffs with a route toward recovery, but it will also ensure that the federal court system continues to run smoothly in a time where unsolicited text messages are becoming increasingly harmful.
Talia L. Balakirsky,
To “Opt Out” Go to Court: How the Public Nuisance Doctrine Can Solve the Robotext Circuit Split and Support Plaintiffs,
88 Brook. L. Rev.
Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol88/iss2/8