Cabral v. Penske: A Rental Quote Form Doesn't End a Prerecorded Voicemail Case Early

The Voicemail

The plaintiff says that in August 2021 he got a prerecorded message from a caller "calling from Penske Truck Rental," asking where his "moving plans currently stand," pitching its locations and options, and asking him to call a toll-free number for "the best possible rate." He said the voice sounded robotic and generic, other consumers had posted recordings of the same message online, and he never gave express written consent to prerecorded calls. He sued under the prerecorded voice ban in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) for himself and a class.

Round One: "You Asked Us to Call"

The company brought a factual attack on standing. It submitted a declaration from the director of its rental contact center saying the plaintiff requested a quote online, gave his phone number, and checked a contact authorization box allowing automated contact. No injury, it argued, because he had asked for it.

The court considered the evidence, as it can on a factual challenge, but wasn't persuaded. The Third Circuit held in Susinno v. Work Out World Inc., 862 F.3d 346 (3d Cir. 2017), that even a single unwanted prerecorded call causes the kind of nuisance and privacy harm that supports standing. The plaintiff specifically alleged invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion, which is more than a bare statutory violation.

And the consent fight? The plaintiff offered no evidence to rebut the form submission, but argued that whatever he agreed to didn't extend to prerecorded messages. That's a dispute about the scope of consent, which goes to the merits. The court said it's better resolved after discovery and the company can raise it again later.

Round Two: "Prove It Was Prerecorded"

The company also argued the complaint didn't plausibly allege a prerecorded voice. Courts in the Third Circuit look for clues like a delay, a beep, a toll-free callback number, an unusual number, a robotic voice, or nothing specific to the person called. This complaint quoted the whole message, described the robotic generic voice, noted the 1-800 callback number, and pointed to identical recordings online. That was enough at this stage.

Round Three: "Strike the Class Allegations"

Courts in the Third Circuit usually wait for a class certification motion before deciding Rule 23 issues. Striking class allegations is reserved for when no amount of discovery could fix the problem. That wasn't the case here, so the motion to strike was denied too.

Why It Matters

Lots of businesses assume a filled-out web form is a get-out-of-court-free card. This ruling shows the limits. If consent language doesn't clearly cover prerecorded or artificial voice messages, the company may be stuck litigating what the customer actually agreed to, through discovery and beyond. If you want to send prerecorded follow-ups, make sure your form says so plainly and keep proof of exactly what the customer saw.

Read the Middle District of Pennsylvania decision in Cabral v. Penske.