So AdaptHealth just settled a TCPA case for about $7MM (I think) and this is just a weird settlement, for a couple of reasons.
First, let’s acknowledge that AdaptHealth was just featured on TCPAWorld like two days ago for making a blunder in a different TCPA case. 
But apparently AdaptHealth has made a couple of other TCPA-related mistakes lately.
In Desouza v. Defendants AdaptHealth Corp. (“AdaptHealth”) and AeroCare Holdings (“AeroCare”) 2023 WL 5434712 (M.D. Fl. Aug. 7, 2023) AdaptHealth apparently failed to heed stop requests from consumers in response to text messages it was sending out.
Specifically, 32,035  folks apparently received approximately 220,000 text messages after asking for texts to stop.
That is just plain not good.
The class definition was:
Since November 23, 2018, all persons to whose telephone number the AdaptHealth Parties initiated, or
had initiated on their behalf, more than one text message in a 12-month period for the purpose of inviting
the recipient to order CPAP supplies, after the recipient had replied “stop” or its equivalent to one of the
AdaptHealth Parties’ text messages.
So text messages to sell CPAP supplies resulted in a massive TCPA exposure when, apparently, AdaptHealth failed to honor stop messages.
Weird and bad. But tech glitches do happen, I suppose.
But things get weirder still.
The settlement structure here is unusual. Usually in TCPA class actions a settlement is a common fund–meaning all sums to be paid come out of a single sum to be paid by the defendant.
AdaptHealth did it differently for some reason. First, they agreed to pay $160.00 to each Plaintiff on a claims made basis. That means they may be on the hook for over $5MM just for payments to class members (although they may end up paying much less depending on how many claims are made.)
But then they are going to pay another sum on top of that to compensate the Plaintiffs lawyers. That amount is not set yet but it looks to be over $1MM.
Another weird thing is the limited release. Usually a TCPA defendant paying millions of dollars will get a nice big fat broad release of a whole bunch of claims available to a whole bunch of people. Here, seemingly, not so much. The Court notes the release at issue is limited to claims “that relate to or arise out of the Post-Stop texts that were sent during the Class Period.”
So that’s it huh. $6MM and the class members can still sue you for other claims?
But the last–and weirdest–thing is that this is a text message case. So some people might be thinking–after Facebook and after the FTSA amendments, why would AdaptHealth agree to pay so much here? It is odd. But remember these were all individuals who should have been put on the internal DNC list and were not. So there is value to settling the claims but I am not sure there is a private right of action in this context absent evidence AH also did not have a DNC policy (if it did there should have been a complete good faith defense.) So.. yeah…weird.
Regardless, that last point drives a big take away here– even if you are using text messaging (which remains the safest channel) you still need to be honoring text messages effectively. Failing to do so can still be extremely costly.
I am quite certain AdaptHealth did not intentionally ignore consumer’s asking for texts to stop. It was undoubtedly a glitch somewhere. But the TCPA is a strict liability statute in most respects. So you need to be extremely cautious. Still though good policies and practices and keep you out of multi-million dollar trouble.
If you’re concerned here a few quick tips:
Be sure to reach out to ycounsel to help with compliance concerns.
Join a great group like R.E.A.C.H. so you can get the latest information and awesome educational materials to help you stay on top of the (TCPA)World.; and
Subscribe to our FREE and AWESOME Deserve to Win YouTube channels and critical MAGAZINE. You just can’t get content like this anywhere else, and it is all free (for now.) 
About this Author
Eric J Troutman is known as one of the country’s prominent class action defense lawyers and is nationally recognized in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation and compliance. He has served as lead defense counsel in more than 70 national TCPA class actions and has litigated nearly a thousand individual TCPA cases in his role as national strategic litigation counsel for major banks and finance companies. Eric also helps industry participants build TCPA-compliant processes, policies, and systems.
Eric’s perspective allows him to…
 

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 
Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.

source