Temu Faces Another Legal Complaint Over Promotional Strategy and Consumer Privacy
Consumers continue to put the heat on Temu.
Howard Favichia, a California resident, filed a proposed class action against the e-commerce marketplace on Aug. 21 in the state’s Eastern District Court, alleging that it had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In his complaint, he said Temu texted him with marketing and advertising messages multiple times after he attempted to opt out.
More from Sourcing Journal
Screenshots in the complaint show Favichia sent Temu an opt-out message on April 10, but allegedly, the company continued to send him messages; other screenshots showing purported messages from Temu are dated June 29, July 6, July 13, July 19 and July 21. The plaintiff said, “The purpose of [Temu’s] text messages was to advertise, promote and/or market [its] goods.”
According to the complaint, Favichia believes Temu does not have an efficient way to keep track of its marketing and advertising recipients.
“[Temu’s] refusal to honor [Favichia’s] opt-out requests demonstrates that [Temu] has not instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive text messages from [it],” counsel for Favichia wrote.
The complaint goes on to say that, because Temu allegedly continued messaging Favichia without his consent, “to harass [him] into making purchases,” its actions were “violative” and that his wishes were “ignored by [Temu] and its employees.” In turn, Favichia alleges, the alleged messges caused “inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance and violation of…privacy rights.”
Favichia makes note throughout the lawsuit that he is not alone in his situation, which is why his counsel chose to propose a class action, rather than an individual lawsuit. Counsel for the plaintiff proposed the definition of the class as every person within the U.S. who, over the past four years, has received two or more unsolicited texts from Temu within a 12-month period, after previously opting out of communication with the company. The complaint estimates “that there are at least 50 individuals that fall within the class definition.”
Favichia’s attorneys have sought an injunction that would require Temu to maintain a do-not-call list, and have requested damages applicable under the TPCA for himself and potential class members. Before the lawsuit can proceed as a class action, a judge would need to certify the case as such. That in mind, Favichia’s lawyers also asked the judge to certify the case and appoint him the representative of a potential class in this case.
The lawsuit comes on the heels of a similar class action, filed in early July, which alleged that Temu repeatedly contacted Phyllis King via text message several times, despite her status on the federal do-not-call registry.
King’s attorney filed a notice of voluntary dismissal for that case on Wednesday; court records show that, leading up to that, Temu had not filed a counterclaim, nor had a judge taken action to approve or deny the formation of a class.
“Temu takes consumer protection seriously. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend our interests vigorously,” a Temu spokesperson said in an emailed statement. That statement is identical to the one the company issued to Sourcing Journal when commenting on King’s proposed class action.
Solve the daily Crossword
