Quad Cities Industrial Maintenance & Construction, Inc. v. Kruckenberg, 2023 IL App (4th) 220536-U

- Case citation and parties
Quad Cities Industrial Maintenance & Construction, Inc. v. Kruckenberg, No. 4‑22‑0536, 2023 IL App (4th) 220536‑U (Ill. App. Ct. May 9, 2023) (Order under Illinois Sup. Ct. R. 23; non‑precedential except in limited circumstances). Plaintiff‑appellant: Quad Cities Industrial Maintenance & Construction, Inc. Defendant‑appellee: Geri Kruckenberg, D.C.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether an advertiser is a “sender” liable under the TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227) for unsolicited fax advertisements when a third‑party fax broadcaster (B2B) transmitted the faxes.
2) Whether the broadcaster’s alleged misrepresentations and conduct outside the scope of authority preclude advertiser liability (i.e., whether there was agency or the advertiser reasonably relied on the broadcaster’s promises).

- Holding/outcome
The Fourth District affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Kruckenberg — the advertiser was not liable as the “sender” of the unsolicited fax under the TCPA on the record presented.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court relied on FCC guidance (citing Akin Gump and related FCC authority) recognizing that an advertiser may not be the “sender” where the fax broadcaster deceived the advertiser or exceeded its authority such that the advertiser was unaware and unable to prevent the unlawful transmissions. Material facts showed B2B (per its own depositions) purchased recipient lists, did not obtain prior consent, and represented to prospective customers that it would send only to recipients who wished to receive faxes. Kruckenberg (advertiser) never supplied fax numbers, never knew recipients, approved the ad design, paid B2B, and reasonably (per the court) relied on B2B’s representations—particularly the disclaimer on the fax—when hiring B2B. On that record, the court concluded B2B’s deception and conduct outside the scope of any actual or implied authority negated advertiser “sender” liability. Plaintiff’s contrary arguments that the fine‑print disclaimer could not create a promise or that Kruckenberg’s reliance was unreasonable did not create a triable issue sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

- Practice implications
- Defense: This decision supports summary judgment defenses for advertisers when a proven third‑party fax broadcaster deceived the advertiser or acted beyond any limited authority, especially where the advertiser did not supply recipient lists or direct targeting.
- Plaintiff: To impose advertiser liability, develop evidence of advertiser control over recipient selection, actual knowledge of no consent, or explicit authorization/involvement in distribution lists.
- Risk management: Advertisers should document vendor representations, obtain contractual warranties/indemnities, require proof of recipient consent, and retain records of recipient lists and vendor selection/oversight.
- Administrative: The opinion treats FCC decisions as heavily influential; monitor FCC TCPA pronouncements and vendor practices in TCPA exposure assessments.