We've recently discussed the "Jon Snow" effect of citing unpublished 11th Circuit opinions -- what do they really add?
Turns out not much when compared to a 7th Circuit opinion by the very respected Judge Easterbrook:
Seizing on the language in Meadows, Wells Fargo argues that we should interpret the “prior express consent” language of § 227(b)(1)(A) to also apply to the intended recipient. According to Wells Fargo, such a reading makes sense because, like a call made to a residential phone number, a caller cannot be expected to know who will answer a cell phone call. Of course, Meadows did not purport to define the term “called party,” but Wells Fargo contends its reasoning applies just the same. We decline to follow Wells Fargo down this road.Also -- yet another affirmance for Judge Scola!