Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jordana Nelson's prior experience as a general counsel inform her work with firm clients? Read more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

The M&A Advisor Winner 2017The M&A Advisor announced the winners of the 16th Annual M&A Advisor Awards on Monday, November 13 at the 2017 M&A Advisor Awards. Bass, Berry & Sims was named a winner in the two categories related to the following deals:

M&A Deal of the Year (from $1B-$5B) – Acquisition of CLARCOR Inc. by Parker Hannifin Corporation

Corporate/Strategic Deal of the Year (over $1B) – Acquisition of BNC Bancorp by Pinnacle Financial Partners

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Regulation A+

It seems that lately there has been a noticeable uptick in Regulation A+ activity, including several recent Reg A+ securities offerings where the stock now successfully trades on national exchanges. In light of this activity, we have published a set of FAQs about Regulation A+ securities offerings to help companies better understand this "mini-IPO" offering process, as well as pros and cons compared to a traditional underwritten IPO.

Read now

Will the D.C. Circuit Overturn Fax Opt-Out Requirement?

Firm Publication


November 28, 2016

Though not as common as they once were, fax advertisements continue to be used in several industries, particularly healthcare, where providers and manufacturers rely on faxes to comply with regulatory obligations. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in a case that may ease some of the regulatory burden associated with faxes under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). 

Yaakov v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a consolidation of 13 cases challenging the FCC's ability to regulate permissive faxes under the TCPA. The TCPA expressly authorizes the FCC to issue rules regulating unsolicited fax advertisements, but makes no mention of faxes sent with the recipient's permission. 

Yaakov arose from a 2006 FCC order requiring every fax advertisement to include opt-out notices, even when the sender had permission from, or an established business relationship with, the recipient. In 2014, the FCC issued a second order reaffirming the 2006 rule. Because of past uncertainty as to how broadly the 2006 order applied, the 2014 order also gave companies six months to apply for retroactive waivers to excuse any previous non-compliance. Together, the 2006 and 2014 FCC orders have led to numerous class action lawsuits with plaintiffs alleging that (1) companies failed to include opt-out notices on commercial faxes, and (2) the FCC lacked authority to issue retroactive waivers that, according to plaintiffs, permitted non-compliance with a federal statute.

In Yaakov, parties challenging the FCC orders have argued that Congress only granted the agency the power to regulate unsolicited fax advertisements and that the 2006 and 2014 FCC orders are therefore improper. While orders issued by federal government agencies like the FCC can have the force of law, agencies cannot adopt rules outside the scope of their congressional authorization. Because the TCPA only expressly authorizes the FCC to regulate unsolicited faxes, the rule challengers argue that the FCC exceeded the scope of its authority when it issued a rule requiring opt-out language in every fax advertisement. Conversely, attorneys for the FCC have argued that the agency's actions were proper because the statute does not expressly prohibit the FCC from regulating solicited faxes. 

The D.C. Circuit's decision in Yaakov may have a significant impact on healthcare companies' and other industries' fax communications. The Consumer Financial Services Group at Bass, Berry & Sims will continue to monitor this case and provide an update when the case is decided.

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.