Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez
Whether an unaccepted offer of complete relief to a named plaintiff moots the plaintiff's individual claim and, separately, whether a private government contractor is shielded by the government's sovereign immunity when it sends unsolicited text messages that allegedly violate federal law.
The Decision
6-3 decision · Opinion by Ruth Bader Ginsburg · 2016
Majority Opinion— Ruth Bader Ginsburgconcurring ↓dissent ↓
In a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that an unaccepted offer of complete relief does not moot a plaintiff's case. The Court also held that Campbell-Ewald was not entitled to the federal government's sovereign immunity.
On the mootness question — the central issue in the case — the Court applied longstanding principles of contract law. Under those principles, an offer that is not accepted creates no lasting right or obligation. It is, in legal terms, a nullity. Justice Ginsburg explained that just as an unaccepted offer in everyday life does not bind either party, an unaccepted settlement offer in litigation does not eliminate the plaintiff's claim or give the plaintiff the relief sought. Because Gomez never accepted the offer, he had received nothing — no money, no injunction, no relief of any kind. His claim for damages under the TCPA therefore remained very much alive, and federal courts retained jurisdiction to hear it.
The Court rejected Campbell-Ewald's argument that the mere availability of complete relief was enough to extinguish the controversy. The majority emphasized that Article III of the Constitution requires a real case or controversy, but that standard is met as long as the plaintiff still has an unredressed injury. Since Gomez was never actually compensated, his injury persisted. The Court drew an analogy: if someone offers to pay for a broken window but the homeowner declines, the window is still broken.
On the government contractor immunity question, the Court acknowledged that under its 1940 decision in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., a contractor carrying out the government's lawful directions may be protected from liability. However, the Court emphasized that this protection applies only when the contractor acts within the scope of its validly conferred authority and follows lawful government instructions. Here, the Navy's contract required Campbell-Ewald to comply with all applicable laws, including the TCPA. Because Gomez alleged that the company sent text messages to people who had not consented — in violation of federal law — Campbell-Ewald could not claim it was simply following lawful government orders. Its alleged conduct went beyond what the government authorized, and thus no immunity attached.
The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings, leaving Gomez free to continue pursuing his claims.
Concurring Opinions
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the judgment but wrote separately, agreeing that the case was not moot but for narrower reasons rooted in the historical common-law distinction between an unaccepted offer (which has no effect) and an actual tender of payment (which, if refused, might have different legal consequences). Thomas expressly reserved the question of whether a defendant who physically deposits the full amount with the court — rather than merely offering it — could moot a claim.
Dissenting Opinions
John G. Roberts Jr.joined by Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Chief Justice Roberts argued that when a defendant offers a plaintiff the full amount of damages available under the statute, the plaintiff no longer has a personal stake in the outcome, and the case becomes moot. He contended that the majority's approach would allow plaintiffs to prolong litigation and impose costs on defendants even when there is no remaining dispute about what the plaintiff is owed.
- Article III requires an actual controversy, and when a defendant concedes everything the plaintiff demands, there is nothing left to litigate — the plaintiff has won.
- Allowing a plaintiff to reject full relief and continue suing transforms federal courts from forums for resolving real disputes into venues for abstract grievances, undermining the constitutional limits on judicial power.
- The majority's contract-law analogy is misplaced because litigation is not a private negotiation — it is a process governed by constitutional requirements, and a defendant's willingness to provide complete relief should end the case.
Background & Facts
Campbell-Ewald Company is a nationwide advertising and marketing communications agency. In 2000, the United States Navy hired the company to develop and execute a multimedia recruiting campaign aimed at young people. As part of this effort, Campbell-Ewald proposed a plan to send text messages to targeted individuals encouraging them to learn more about joining the Navy. The Navy approved the plan but required that messages be sent only to people who had opted in — that is, who had consented to receive such texts. Federal law, specifically the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), makes it illegal to send unsolicited text messages to cell phones using an autodialer without the recipient's prior express consent.
Jose Gomez, a resident of Los Angeles, received one of these Navy recruitment text messages on his cell phone in May 2006. Gomez had never consented to receive the message. He filed a lawsuit against Campbell-Ewald in federal court, alleging the company violated the TCPA by sending him — and thousands of others — unsolicited recruiting texts. He sought to bring the case as a class action on behalf of everyone who received these unauthorized messages.
Before the district court could decide whether to certify Gomez's proposed class, Campbell-Ewald made a strategic move: it offered Gomez $1,503 per message for each of his three TCPA claims — the maximum statutory damages available — plus reasonable costs. This offer would have given Gomez everything he could possibly win at trial on his individual claim. Gomez rejected the offer and continued to press his case, including his bid for class certification.
Campbell-Ewald then argued that the case should be dismissed on two grounds. First, it claimed that Gomez's lawsuit was now 'moot' — meaning there was no longer a live controversy — because the company had offered him full relief. Second, it argued that as a contractor acting on behalf of the federal government, it was entitled to share in the government's sovereign immunity from suit. The district court rejected the mootness argument but accepted the sovereign immunity defense. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that neither argument warranted dismissal. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve a split among the federal appellate courts on whether an unaccepted settlement offer can moot a plaintiff's claim.
The Arguments
Campbell-Ewald argued that its unaccepted offer of complete relief to Gomez eliminated any live controversy, rendering the case moot and depriving the court of jurisdiction. It further argued that because it was acting as a government contractor carrying out a Navy program, it was shielded from suit by the federal government's sovereign immunity.
- Once a defendant offers the plaintiff everything the law allows, there is no remaining injury to redress and no case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution.
- Under the doctrine recognized in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., a contractor acting on behalf of the government and following government direction shares in the government's immunity from suit.
- Campbell-Ewald developed and executed its text messaging campaign pursuant to a contract with and under the supervision of the U.S. Navy, making it an agent of the sovereign.
Gomez argued that an unaccepted settlement offer has no legal effect and cannot moot a claim because it provides no actual relief to the plaintiff. He further argued that Campbell-Ewald could not claim government immunity because the company violated federal law, which the Navy never authorized it to do.
- Basic contract law principles establish that an unaccepted offer is a legal nullity — it creates no obligation on either side and does not change the plaintiff's legal position.
- A government contractor can only claim derivative protection when it faithfully follows lawful government instructions, not when it breaks the law.
- The Navy's contract itself required Campbell-Ewald to comply with all applicable laws, including the TCPA's requirement of prior consent, and evidence suggested the company sent messages to people who never opted in.