Apparently, Jose Gomez and his counsel feel the same way. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, Mr. Gomez received an unsolicited text from Campbell-Ewald Co. in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The TCPA broadly restricts telephone solicitations, including automated systems that use text messages and prerecorded voice messages. Mr. Gomez sued as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. As a single violation, Mr. Gomez only is entitled to $1,503.00 under the TCPA. Campbell-Ewald Co. offered to pay him the statutory fee, and then argued Mr. Gomez’s action was moot. Case over?

Not so fast, says Jonathan F. Mitchell, counsel for Mr. Gomez. What about all of the other potential plaintiffs? What about attorney’s fees? The purpose of a class action is to allow the aggregation of numerous smaller claims that would otherwise not be worth the expense of pursuing relief. Class members can combine resources to afford the fees and costs of litigation, and attorneys have an incentive to represent class members. The question then is: has Mr. Gomez really been made whole?

The legal battle ensues in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez. The court is faced with two issues: (1) does a claim become moot when the plaintiff receives an offer that makes him or her whole; and (2) is the answer different if plaintiff purports to represent an uncertified class? If Mr. Gomez is compensated, then what happens to the remaining class?

The text at issue was an advertising text that Campbell-Ewald Co. sent pursuant to a contract with the U.S. Navy: “Destined for something big? Do it in the Navy. Get a career. An education. And a chance to serve a greater cause. For a FREE Navy video – call xxx-xxxx.” Campbell-Ewald Co.’s plan was to send the message to 150,000 adults ages 18-24 from an “opt-in” list of cell phone numbers. The issue arose because Mr. Gomez had not consented and was mistakenly sent the message.

Is receiving a mistaken advertising text really worth $1,503? And, once offered that full amount, is it really worth continuing the fight? In fact, can Gomez legally continue the fight? According to Chief Justice Roberts, Mr. Gomez “won’t take yes for an answer.”

The decision in this case may affect all class action lawsuits. If defendant simply offers to pay the lead plaintiff, is the case over, even for the other potential plaintiffs? Does a case and controversy capable of redress still exist? Gomez argues that it does. An offer is not legally binding, but adjudication creates a legally enforceable judgment. Isn’t this the very reason class action lawsuits exist? So that many plaintiffs can seek justice? We await the Supreme Court’s answer.