The common sense answer would seem to be "of course" followed by "dude, why do you still have a fax machine"?
But fancy lawyers sometimes get our wires crossed, and that's what seems to have happened here:
Despite reaching the merits of Palm Beach Golf’s TCPA claim, the District Court further held that Palm Beach Golf lacked Article III standing because it was unable to demonstrate that it had suffered an injury in fact. The District Court concluded that “nowhere in the statute does Congress express an intent to circumvent the requirement that a plaintiff have Article III case-or-controversy standing to bring a claim, which requires that the plaintiff demonstrate a distinct and palpable injury to himself.” Because there was no evidence that any employee of Plaintiff’s saw or printed the transmitted fax, the District Court concluded that Palm Beach Golf was unable to demonstrate that it had suffered a sufficiently concrete injury to establish standing under Article III.Huh?
So if a bunch of unsolicited faxes arrive at your fax machine overnight and get tossed by the building cleaning crew in the morning, no one has an injury?
The 11th says not quite:
Palm Beach Golf insists that it was error for the District Court to hold that, because it failed to prove that the fax was printed or seen, it lacked Article III standing. For Plaintiff, the specific injury targeted by the TCPA is the sending of the fax and resulting occupation of the recipient’s telephone line and fax machine, not that the fax was actually printed or read. We agree....We find that Palm Beach Golf has Article III standing sufficient to satisfy the injury requirement because it has suffered a concrete and personalized injury in the form of the occupation of its fax machine for the period of time required for the electronic transmission of the data (which, in this case was one minute).Sheesh, glad we got that straightened out.
(Now get rid of that stupid fax machine already.)