California Couple Sues Five Cannabis Companies Over Allegedly Unlawful Spam Text Messages

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Five cannabis purveyors face a proposed class action in which a husband and wife claim they received unsolicited automated text messages from the companies despite having never provided express consent to be contacted.

Filed against cannabis product maker Dixie Brands Inc. and dispensary operators Euflora, Mile High Green Cross, Native Roots Cannabis Company and Starbuds, the 26-page lawsuit out of Colorado alleges the defendants have engaged in an unlawful telemarketing campaign in order to generate more revenue at the expense of consumers’ privacy.

According to the case, the defendants have, in their text message telemarketing efforts, used products and services developed by non-party Baker Technologies, Inc., who the complaint describes as “the leading customer relationship management services provider (‘CRM’) for the cannabis industry.” Baker, the suit says, provides software designed to “effortlessly collect customer information” through in-store tablet applications, such as “Cell Checkin,” and from the defendants’ websites in an embedded application called “Cell Collect.” The software is designed to harvest customers’ cell phone numbers and build data-enhanced lists that can be used with an automatic telephone dialing system to send thousands of text messages to the cannabis companies’ customers, the case relays.

The Los Angeles-based plaintiffs say they provided their cell phone numbers while visiting several of the defendants’ stores during an April 2016 trip to Colorado and on the companies’ websites. Despite having never provided express written consent to be contacted by text message, the plaintiffs received dozens of automated texts from the cannabis companies in an attempt to advertise their goods and services, according to the complaint.

One of the plaintiffs says, for example, that she received at least 43 text messages from Euflora between September 2017 and February 2019 even though she visited the store in person only once.

The lawsuit argues that the way in which the plaintiffs provided their cell phone numbers to the defendants does not constitute “valid prior express written consent” as defined by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) given the process did not present a clear and conspicuous disclosure, bear a signature, specify that more than one text message would be sent, reference an “agreement,” and specifically authorize each of the defendants to deliver such text messages.

Per the complaint, the defendants overstepped the TCPA by sending thousands of non-emergency text messages using automated technology without first obtaining the recipients’ express written consent to be contacted.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.