The allegation of even one unwanted robocall is sufficient cause to sue under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in reinstating a putative class-action lawsuit against a utility.

Matthew Dickson initially alleged he had received 11 unwanted robocalls from Houston-based Direct Energy LP in violation of the TCPA, which restricts certain telemarketing practices, including using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, according to the ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Matthew Dickson v. Direct Energy LP; Total Marketing Concepts Inc.; Silverman Enterprises LLC.

The U.S. District Court in Akron, Ohio, dismissed the lawsuit after an expert testified on Direct Energy’s behalf that Mr. Dickson had received only one ringless voicemail. 

The lower court held that Mr. Dickson’s receipt of the call did not constitute a concrete harm because he could not recall what he was doing when he received it; he was not charged for it; it did not tie up his phone; and he “spent an exceedingly small amount of time” reviewing the call.

In reinstating the lawsuit, a three-judge appeals court panel held that Direct Energy’s unsolicited call “implicates Dickson’s common-law right to seclusion, that is, his right to be left alone from others, including by means of telephone communications.”

Direct Energy “invaded Dickson’s private sphere when it placed an unsolicited prerecorded call to his cellphone,” the panel said in concluding Mr. Dickson had successfully alleged an intangible harm and reinstating the lawsuit.

Plaintiff attorney Brian Murphy, of Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP in Columbus, Ohio, said in a statement the ruling  “resolves a critical legal issue for TCPA plaintiffs” in holding Mr. Dickson had constitutional standing to pursue his lawsuit. He added that he hoped the decision would result in a judgment for more than 2.5 million class members “who were subjected to Direct Energy's illegal prerecorded telemarketing calls.”

Defense attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.