815 ILCS 305/30

Violations

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(815 ILCS 305/30) (from Ch. 134, par. 130)

Sec. 30. Violations.

(a) It is a violation of this Act to make or cause to be
made
telephone calls utilizing an autodialer to any emergency telephone number
as defined in Section 5.
It is a violation of this Act to make or cause to be made telephone calls
utilizing an autodialer in a manner that does not comply with Section 15.

(b) It is a violation of this Act to play a
prerecorded
message placed by an autodialer without the consent of the called party.

(c) Enforcement by customer. Any customer injured by a violation of this
Act may bring an action for the recovery of damages. Judgment may be
entered for 3 times the amount at which the actual damages are assessed,
plus costs and reasonable attorney fees.

(c-5) In addition to the damages authorized under subsection (c), a consumer may obtain statutory damages in the amount of $500 per violation.

(d) Enforcement by Attorney General. Violation of any of the provisions
of this Act is an unlawful practice under Section 2Z of the Consumer
Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act. All remedies, penalties and authority
granted to the Attorney General by that Act shall be available to him for
the enforcement of this Act. In any action brought by the Attorney General
to enforce this Act, the court may order that persons who incurred actual
damages be awarded the amount at which actual damages are assessed. In addition to actual damages, a court may order that each person who received a call in violation of this Act be awarded statutory damages in the amount of $500 per violation.

(Source: P.A. 98-546, eff. 8-26-13.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2021 · leading case: United States v. Dish Network LLC

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Dish Network LLC (2017) ilcd “The Defendant, and/or third parties acting on its behalf, has violated 815 ILCS 305/30(b) and 815 ILCS 505/2Z by knowingly playing or causing to be played prerecorded messages placed by an autodialer without the consent of the called party.”

United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (2014) ilcd · cites it 2× “See 815 ILCS 305/30(a). The IATDA contains an Established Business Relationship exemption for “calls made to any person with whom the telephone solicitor has a prior or existing business relationship.”

Khorloo v. John C. Heath Attorney at Law (2021) ilnd · cites it 3× “State-Law Claims Plaintiffs also assert four state-law claims: Count III asserts a claim pursuant to the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act, 815 ILCS 305/30 (“IATDA”); Counts II and IV assert claims pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices…”

— 815 ILCS 305/30(a) — 2 cases

United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (2014) ilcd “See 815 ILCS 305/30(a). The IATDA contains an Established Business Relationship exemption for “calls made to any person with whom the telephone solicitor has a prior or existing business relationship.”

Khorloo v. John C. Heath Attorney at Law (2021) ilnd “State-Law Claims Plaintiffs also assert four state-law claims: Count III asserts a claim pursuant to the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act, 815 ILCS 305/30 (“IATDA”); Counts II and IV assert claims pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices…”

— 815 ILCS 305/30(b) — 2 cases

United States v. Dish Network LLC (2017) ilcd “The Defendant, and/or third parties acting on its behalf, has violated 815 ILCS 305/30(b) and 815 ILCS 505/2Z by knowingly playing or causing to be played prerecorded messages placed by an autodialer without the consent of the called party.”

United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (2014) ilcd “See 815 ILCS 305/30(a). The IATDA contains an Established Business Relationship exemption for “calls made to any person with whom the telephone solicitor has a prior or existing business relationship.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.