McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits sending fax advertisements without the recipient’s consent. In this case, the recipient of faxes from McKesson Corporation sued under the TCPA and sought certification of the class of recipients who received fax advertisements from McKesson but had not consented. McKesson, though, sent faxes to both traditional fax machines and to online fax services. And the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which implements the TCPA, has issued a rule stating that the statute applies only to faxes sent to traditional fax machines, not to online fax services. Based on the FCC’s rule, the district court certified a class of recipients of the faxes only on traditional fax machines. Then, because the parties could not determine whether customers received faxes on stand-alone fax machines or through online fax services, the district court decertified the class.

Along the way, the plaintiff had argued that the TCPA does apply to online fax services, despite the FCC’s contrary view. Under a statute known as the Hobbs Act, an FCC rule can be challenged only in a court of appeals and only within 60 days of when the agency issued it. The district court held, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, that, in light of the Hobbs Act’s limits on judicial review, the court was bound by the FCC’s view.

The Supreme Court granted review to address the issue whether, where a rule is subject to the Hobbs Act, district courts are bound by the rule. Public Citizen filed an amicus brief explaining an “interpretive rule” that states the agency’s view of what a statute means is never binding, and that the Hobbs Act does not transform a non-binding rule into a binding one. By contrast, in cases involving a “legislative rule,” courts would be bound to accept the agency’s rule in this circumstance—a result flowing from the language of the Hobbs Act and section 703 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Nonetheless, because both parties agree that the rule at issue is interpretive, we explained, the Court need not address legislative rules to decide the case.