The "People v. Tech" Blog

Does Violation of the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act" Result in "Tech Injury"?

Wed, 06 May 2026 14:56:05 GMT

In short answer - YES - the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) does permit private causes of action under 47 USC 227(b)(3) and (c)(5). The imposed penalties are dictated as being up to $500 per violation or the actual financial loss whichever is greater These penalties include potential enhancements for willful or knowing violations. The TCPA in essence prohibits unsolicited marketing callas, texts or fax and dictates the penalties and liability imposed for such violations. This federal statute is further supported by Texas law under the Texas Business & Commerce Code.

This type of outreach that is generally prohibited involves that which lacks consent, lacks an opt-out option and involves an automated process. But certain excepetions exists such as for normal notifications, information notices and prior commerce or business relationships.

The TCPA has different subsections distinguishing different levels of liability for different violations. Additionally, numerous Federal and Texas Courts have upheld the right to private causes of action including enforcement for violations of the TCPA.

Finally, to bring action for TCPA violations it is important that factual and technical records of such TCPA violations be maintained as such is vital to obtain relief though any enforcement or litigatory process.

"People v. Tech"

UPDATE: Do Ford's Vehicle Biometric Patents Cause "Tech Injury"?

Mon, 04 May 2026 03:10:02 GMT

As previously stated - Ford maintains patents involving vehicle monitoring consisting of but but not limited to the following - Face Scanning, Eye Scanning, Lip Reading, Emotion Sensing, Body Gesture Monitoring & Driving Assessment. Again, still very scary. Ford and other auto manufacturers are allegedly obtaining these patents to comply with upcoming Congressional statutory mandates that were recently made into law requiring that this type of monitoring become standard in new vehicles for purposes of traffic safety and security. Federal Agencies are now in the process of creating Federal Agency Regulations that will actually implement this mandate.

Though this mandate is now statutory law it is important to understand that it is still subject to the Federal Agency Administrative Review, Publication and Commentary Process. In sum, Federal Agencies will soon have internal Agency review of the mandate, write Agency Regulations to implement the Congressional mandate, open up a commentary period and amend or reject such commentary proposals followed by additional review for any made amendments. At this point the Regulation in essence becomes the equivalent of law itself subject to Federal Court review via lawsuits, injunctions and other legal relief.

"People v. Tech"

Do Ford's Vehicle Biometric Patents Cause "Tech Injury"?

Sat, 02 May 2026 19:20:34 GMT

Currently Ford maintains p atents involving vehicle monitoring consisting of but but not limited to the following - Face Scanning, Eye Scanning, Lip Reading, Emotion Sensing, Body Gesture Monitoring & Driving Assessment . Scary?....YES!

It is not yet clear to what degree this type of "monitoring" will permit the external control of vehicles let alone who owns, manages and access that data. What if such patents interfere or prevent one needing to get to the hospital, work or other important necessity? What if captured data is accessed and obtains the release of personal conversations. What if external control of the vehicle results in personal or physical injury to the driver, passengers or others?

Vehicle manufacturers are contending that these patents are to comply with upcoming statute implementation that soon require that "impaired driving prevention technology" be utilized by auto manuracturers. But such requirements still do not make clear or answer the above questions.

But aside, it is important to note that even a fully approved patent does not protect an auto manufacturer from liability derived from any "Tech Injury" let alone any other form of injury caused by there patent. Additionally, even such upcoming requirement of installing "impaired driving prevention technology" does not necessarily provide immunity. any "Tech Injury" or other Injury would need to be analyzed on a case by case basis.

The law regarding this aspect of technology is aggressively changing and will hopefully become clear in time and limit injury to drivers and others.

"People v. Tech"

Can a Texas Creditor Cutoff a Delinquent Debtor's Internet Payment Access thus Causing "Tech Injury"?

Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:53:32 GMT

Texas Creditors , Texas Debt Collectors and Texas Debt Collection Attorneys are notorious for taking scrupulous actions in order to improperly pressure a Delinquent Debtor. Our practice has seen numerous Texas Creditors, Texas Debt Collectors and Texas Attorneys cutoff the Delinquent Debtor's Internet Payment Access and thus preventing payment. From experience, we believe the Creditor's purpose in doing this ranges from being a pressure tactic to ensuring that the Debt Collector or Debt Collection Attorney is paid whose fees might even constitute a separate debt. These types of actions make an already tough situation worse.

The "legal test" is if the act of suspending a Delinquent Debtor's Internet Payment Access is being done as a pressure tactic or if it specifically annotated as a valid right dictated by the formal (usually written) relationship existing between the Creditor and the Delinquent Debtor. This is arguably supported by Section 392 of the Texas Finance Code.

Said another way, the test is two fold - 1) First, whether the conduct is being used as coercion of debt collection, and 2) Secondly, does there exists an independent (likely written) right that authorizes the Creditor to conduct such action.

Section 392 in general prohibits the collection of debt by use of threats, coercion or other improper acts. Section 392 does not specifically apply to internet payment access but it is clearly arguable that cutting of such Internet Payment Access constitutes threats, coercion or other improper acts and could very well constitute illegality caused by "tech injury"

There is minimal if any specific appellate law that clearly addresses a Delinquent Debtor's Internet Payment Access but the supporting law potentially establishes a good faith counter-claim that could be brought by a Delinquent Debtor who is trying to remedy the situation but only instead to be harmed by the Creditor's or that Creditor's Agent's actions. If this occurs it is suggested to first review the Terms of Service or Terms of Agreement or other applicable materials to see if cutting off Internet Payment Access is specifically permitted but if not then maybe countering this position (pre-suit or post-suit) could possibly lead to a more equitable settlement or resolution.

Most civil defense counsel are not necessarily focused on the "tech injury" aspects of debt but when kept it mind such aspects can be beneficial to better assisting an aggrieved Debtor.

"People v. Tech"

What is the Texas TDPSA and Does It Apply to "Tech Injury" Outside of Government Action?

Sat, 18 Apr 2026 04:15:29 GMT

The 2024 Texas TDPSA statute is formally known as the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act and is meant to protect "consumers" from entities doing business in Texas or offering products or services consumed by Texas residents. This Act involves the processing of personal information with a few exceptions.

The TDPSA provides consumers the following rights:

* the right over their own personal data

* the right to access to their own personal data

* the right to correct to their own personal data

* the right to delete their own personal data

* the right to port their own personal data

* the right to "opt-out" of certain targeted advertising

* the right to prevent their personal data from being sold

* the right to not be "profiled" in certain ways

* the obligation of any applicable business to provide certain applicable notices

* the obligation of any applicable business to minimize certain data

* the obligation of any applicable business to provide certain reasonable data security

* the obligation of any applicable business to obtain consent to retain certain data

* the obligation of any applicable business to provide certain controls with contractors

* the obligation of any applicable business to conduct data protection assessments

The above protections and obligations are more detailed when reading the Act but the above provides a general overview.

Though positive, this Act lacks having stronger enforcement as any enforcement is specifically vested with only the Texas Attorney General, an elected official. Injured Texas residents are reliant upon the Texas Attorney General to take action to cure and remedy any violation as no private Cause of Action exists under this Act. In sum, the TDPSA is a only a public enforcement tool. Unfortunately this is a "consumer protection" Act that the consumer cannot themselves access.

Again, definitely a positive act meant to protect Texas consumer residents but unfortunately its authority and power is limited to one Texas Agency thereby lacking the degree of enforcement it could have if expanded to allow viable and valid personal Tort Causes of Action.

"People v. Tech"

UPDATE: Is the Texas Government "TikTok" Ban Still a Thing and Does it Involve "Tech Injury"?

Sun, 05 Apr 2026 18:58:48 GMT

The Texas "TikTok" Ban (Texas Government Code Sec. 620) prohibits the state government's, county government's, agency's and municipality government's tech devices from accessing or downloading the TikTok App but is this restriction still valid?

In an effort to confer accuracy - as to date we have found no litigation by any Texas county, municipality, state agency or university attempting to challenge the Texas' Legislature's efforts to control technology that was purchased by that local government or entity.

But the simple unknown question as of this time is this - "Is such ban's purpose is still valid?". As of January/February 2026 TikTok operations were purchased by a consortium of U.S. based companies with the original connected foreign owners retaining a minority ownership while user data is allegedly being retained and managed on U.S or friendly nation based servers. Yet the original foreign owner still retains ownership of the underlying intellectual property being the underlying algorithm.

Being that the data privacy concerns have been "supposedly" removed - due to now current ownership and location of its managed data - it now calls into question if the underlying basis for such ban still exists.

Time will ultimately inform us if the new and current majority ownership will result in a change or elimination of the Texas TikTok Ban.

"People v. Tech"

What is the Texas SCORE Act and Is It Applicable to "Tech Injury" Outside of Government Action?

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 19:55:32 GMT

The Texas SCOPE ACT is formally known as the Texas Securing Children Online Through Parental Empowerment Act that regulates how certain digital providers interact with minors online. It requires certain age checks, parental oversight tools, limits data use, restricts certain data collection, restricts the sharing of data, prohibits certain content, prohibits certain types of advertisement while providing other broad protections.

Online digital service "Providers" fall under this Act and thus subject to its regulations and penalties. These digital Providers includes but not necessarily limited to entertainment providers that provide content or entertainment. Its reach is generally and potentially broad.

It is important to note that the Provider must first know that they are interacting with a minor through age verification mechanisms and then at that time the above protections fall into play.

The Texas SCOPE ACT is generally enforced by the Texas Attorney General with small openings for relief by the parents of minors harmed or whose protections were violated. Parents can potentially seek injunctive or declaratory relief which aids in the the prevention or removal of continued violations but does not necessarily provide for private monetary damages. Said another way, Tech Injury imposed or incurred by minors must rely on the government or seek limited relief. It is still potentially open to debate and argument (based on outside law, precedent and equity) that a parent seeking injunctive or declaratory relief should likewise be able to recover attorney fees, costs (and potentially certain penalties) as they do not constitute monetary damages. This in theory would assist in alleviating the costs to that parent. Though open to possible construction the ability for a parent with an injured or harmed child to be able to recover attorney fees or costs could potentially be an avenue to stop any continuation of such injury or harm.

"People v. Tech"

Does the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act Apply to "Tech Injury"?

Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:23:23 GMT

The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) is an important Texas tool for policing deceptive or unfair technology and data practices, especially where companies misstate, conceal, or mishandle information about collection, use, disclosure, security, or removal of sensitive content. Texas law now expressly ties some technology-specific privacy harms to DTPA liability.

The Texas Civil Practices & Remedies code specifically articulate provisions and damages regarding intimate visual materials; failures involving takedowns; notices and removal processes/systems. This may also include digital services used by minors but it is unclear if these type of actions must be brought the the Texas Attorney General.

Yet it is important to acknowledge that even without specific mention of technology the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act clearly prohibits false, misleading and deceptive conduct broad enough to reach many privacy and technology disputes when the required elements are met. In many aspects recovery for such violations can be broad and can potentially include but not limited to improper data collection, improper geolocation tracking, incognito violations, data breaches, cybersecurity violations, data governance violations, improper biometrics practices, insufficient security safeguards and other digital type service violations or injuries. It is important to remember that any injured party under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act must be a "consumer" which in practice can be fairly broad.

Furthermore, these type of injuries can include those related to technology but not necessarily based only upon that technology itself such as the misrepresentation of the quality or characteristics of goods or services that were or are being displayed digitally via the internet.

Any injured consumer and their attorney need to obtain and develop sufficient and detailed facts as precisely as possible in order to clearly fall under recognized claims. Said another way, ensure that any lawsuit's pleading shows that such violations caused (causation) a consumer's injury.

Finally, though the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act at times may act a stand alone Cause of Action it is generally prudent to combine or tie such violations to other specific precedent or statutory Causes of Action while keeping while also ensuring that no Federal Statutory defenses or permissions allow such activity by the injuring technology company.

In sum, personal injury derived from a consumer's use of technology can potentially recover economic damages and potentially enhanced damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

"People v. Tech"

Is the Texas Government "TikTok" Ban Still a Thing and Does it Involve "Tech Injury"?

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 20:26:23 GMT

The Texas "TikTok" Ban (Texas Government Code Sec. 620) prohibits the state government's, county government's and municipality government's tech devices from accessing or downloading the TikTok App but is this restriction still valid?

First, remember, this Ban only applies to government owned or leased technology and does not affect personally owned technology unless that personally owned technology is used to conduct government business.

With that said it appears that this Ban continues to live since June 2023. It does not appear that there has been any legislative repeal or court invalidation. The assumption is that this Ban will remain valid as it predominantly involves government owned property.

Our own personal question (purely as an academic exercise) is that under what authority can the Texas Legislature mandate how Texas Counties or Texas Municipalities can utilize their own purchased technology outside of the listed exceptions such as criminal investigation. What if a Texas County or Municipality wants to provide information or emergency updates to its citizens. It is true that there are numerous other social media platforms but TikTok tends to have a defined youthful user base who often obtain their information from TikTok. But again, any desire by a Texas County or Texas Municipality to use TikTok for such purposes would need to address such desire directly with the Texas Legislature or seek relief before the Courts.

So, in sum, its still good law therefore any Texas, county or municipality government employee needs to be sure to comply with such Ban in order to protect your continued employment.

"People v. Tech"