The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Robert W. Gettleman
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Saf-T-Gard International, Inc., filed a class action against Defendant Wagener Equities, Inc., in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, on January 16, 2007, claiming that on or about November 9, 2006, it received an unsolicited fax advertisement sent by or on behalf of the defendant, and that the same fax had been sent to numerous other recipients as part of a mass "broadcast." The complaint alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815, and a state law conversion claim. The case was removed to this court on February 15, 2007.*fn1
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this court on March 23, 2007, and filed the current corrected amended complaint on April 4, 2007. The corrected amended complaint eliminated the state law claims, asserting only the TCPA as a basis for plaintiff's individual and class claims.
Plaintiff has moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to certify a class consisting of, (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers, (b) who, on or after January 17, 2003, (c) received advertising faxes by defendant Wagener Equities, Inc. Defendants oppose class certification.*fn2 For the reasons discussed below, the court denies plaintiff's motion.
Defendant is in the business of selling, leasing and managing industrial real estate properties on behalf of its clients. Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that at an unspecified date in 2006, it received an unsolicited fax bearing the signature of defendant's president, Daniel Wagener. The fax invited its recipient to search a website apparently associated with defendant, which contained information on available real estate properties. The parties agree that they have never had a business relationship.
Defendant admits that its president prepared the fax in question, which was intended as a mailer to potential business prospects. Defendant denies that it ever authorized the transmission of the fax to any prospect but concedes that it engaged a third party, the Marketing Research Center ("MRC"), to broadcast the fax to a list of companies defendant understood MRC had "pre-screened" for willingness to receive fax advertisements. According to the testimony of defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Daniel Wagener, although defendant instructed MRC to send Wagener the proposed recipient list for approval prior to transmitting the fax, MRC failed to do so. Defendant concedes that MRC apparently sent the fax to multiple recipients but claims that it never saw or received the recipient list, has had no contact with MRC since the fax was sent, and has no information that would enable it to identify the recipients.
For a case to proceed as a class action in federal court, it must meet each of the "numerosity," "commonality," "typicality," and "adequacy of representation" prerequisites set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), as well as any one of the conditions set forth in Rule 23(b). See Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co, 472 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir. 2006). In addition, the plaintiff must show that the proposed class is sufficiently definite, i.e., that its members are identifiable. See id.; Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 565 F.2d 975, 977 (7thh Cir. 1977). The court must assess the appropriateness of class certification without regard to the merits of the case. See Mira v. Nuclear Measurements Corp., 107 F.3d 466, 474 (7th Cir. 1997).
The TCPA provides that it is unlawful to use a telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device to send an "unsolicited advertisement." 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). To prevail on a claim under the TCPA, plaintiff must show that defendant: "(1) used a telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device to send a facsimile; (2) the facsimile was unsolicited; and (3) the facsimile constituted an advertisement." Hinman v. M and M Rental Center, --- F.Supp.2---, 2008 WL 927910 (N.D. Ill. 2008), at *2.
While federal courts across jurisdictions have grappled with the challenges posed by putative class actions under the TCPA, the Seventh Circuit has not yet had an opportunity to offer guidance on class certification in such cases. District courts have declined to certify class actions in many TCPA cases, see, e.g., Sadowski v. Med1 Online, LLC, 2008 WL 489360 (N.D. Ill. 2008); G.M. Sign, Inc. V. Franklin Bank, 2007 WL 4365359 (N.D. Ill. 2007), Levitt v. Fax.com., 2007 WL 3169078 (D.Md. 2007); Forman v. Data Transfer, Inc., 164 F.R.D. 400 (E.D. Pa. 1995); Kenro, Inc., v. Fax Daily, Inc., 962 F.Supp. 1162 (S.D. Ind. 1997), while certifying them in others, see, e.g., Hinman; Kavu v. Omnipak Corp., 246 F.R.D. 642 (W.D. Wa. 2007); Gene & Gene, LLC, v. Biopay, LLC, 240 F.R.D. 239 (M.D. La. 2006); .
The most frequent bone of contention, in this jurisdiction as in others, revolves around the issue of consent. In nearly every case, defendants oppose certification on the basis that TCPA claims are inherently individual due to the statutory requirement that only "unsolicited" faxes may give rise to a claim. This opposition may be framed in several ways. In some cases, it is articulated as an objection that the class is indefinite and inappropriate because it requires the court to delve into issues of liability. Several courts in this district have declined to certify TCPA cases on this basis. See Sadowski and G.M. Sign. Other courts have found that the consent issue also precludes a finding that the putative class meets the commonality and/or typicality requirements of Rule 23(a). See, e.g., Kenro, Inc., v. Fax Daily, Inc., 962 F.Supp. 1162 (S.D. Ind. 1997); Forman v. Data Transfer, Inc., 164 F.R.D. 400 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
The plaintiffs in Sadowski proposed a class definition substantially similar to the one proffered here.*fn3 They sought to certify a class of "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers; (b) who [during the relevant time period]; (c) were sent advertising faxes by defendant (d) and with respect to whom defendant cannot provide evidence of express consent or an established business relationship prior to the transmission of the faxes." Sadowski, at *3. Relying on G.M. Sign, Forman, and Kenro, the Sadowski court held that the proposed class was indefinite because element (d) would have required the court to probe, on a case-by-case basis, into the merits of the case and into the relationship between plaintiff and defendants, eviscerating the presumed benefits of the class action mechanism. See id.
In Hinman, by contrast, the court certified a class defined as "[a]ll persons who, on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, were sent, without permission, telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendant." Id. at ---. The defendants in that case conceded that thousands of faxes had been sent on several occasions to a "leads" list (or some subset thereof) compiled by a third party. They argued, however, that because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate which of the fax numbers identified on the leads list had actually received the transmission (i.e., the intended transmission had been successful), the plaintiffs failed to ...