League of Women Voters of New Hampshire; League of Women Voters of the United States; Nancy Marashio; James Fieseher; And Patricia Gingrich, Plaintiffs v. Steve Kramer; Life Corporation; and Voice Broadcasting Corporation, Defendants

2024 DNH 043

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: September 19, 2024
• Docket: 24-cv-73-SM-TSM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

League of Women Voters of New Hampshire; League of Women Voters of the United States; Nancy Marashio; James Fieseher; And Patricia Gingrich, Plaintiffs

v. Case No. 24-cv-73-SM-TSM Opinion No. 2024 DNH 043

Steve Kramer; Life Corporation; and Voice Broadcasting Corporation, Defendants

O R D E R

In January of 2024, two days before the New Hampshire

Presidential Primary Election, defendants directed approximately

10,000 (and perhaps significantly more) robocalls to New

Hampshire residents they believed were likely Democratic voters.

The calls featured an AI-generated “deepfake” voice designed to

sound like President Joe Biden and were intended to suppress

Democratic voter turnout. Specifically, the calls urged

recipients to “save” their vote for the November general

election and warned that if they cast a vote in the primary

election it would “only enable the Republicans in their quest to

elect Donald Trump again.” In addition to employing an AI- generated voice designed to deceive recipients into believing

that President Biden had recorded the message, defendants also

“spoofed” the caller ID to falsely show that the call originated

from a phone number associated with a prominent former

Democratic Party leader who was widely known throughout the

state.

In the wake of those robocalls being directed into New

Hampshire, the League of Women Voters of the United States, the

League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, and three individuals

who received the fake robocalls, filed suit. Plaintiffs allege

that defendants’ conduct violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965,

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and two separate

provisions of a New Hampshire statute governing political

advertising. Plaintiffs seek a nationwide injunction enjoining

all defendants from:

producing, generating, or distributing AI-generated robocalls impersonating any person, without that person’s express, prior written consent;

from distributing spoofed telephone calls, texts messages, or any other form of spoofed communication without the express, prior written consent of the individual or entity upon whose half the communication is being sent; and

from distributing telephone calls, text messages, or other mass communications that do not comply with all applicable state and federal laws or that are made for an unlawful purpose.

2 Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction (document no. 71)

at 1. Plaintiffs also seek statutory damages, punitive damages,

and an award of attorney’s fees.

In response, defendants Life Corporation and Voice

Broadcasting Corporation, moved to dismiss all of plaintiffs’

claims (document no. 76).

The court referred plaintiffs’ request for preliminary

injunctive relief to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and

Recommendation. Following a hearing on the matter, the

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (document

no. 99), recommending that the court deny plaintiffs’ motion for

preliminary injunction on grounds that: (a) the institutional

plaintiffs lack standing to obtain the prospective injunctive

relief they seek; (b) none of the plaintiffs has established

that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

injunctive relief; and, finally, (c) plaintiffs’ request for

injunctive relief is not sufficiently specific. Plaintiffs

object to the Report and Recommendation.

As discussed at length in the court’s recent order,

determining whether the institutional plaintiffs have standing

3 to pursue the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint is a

close and difficult call, and one on which reasonable minds can

certainly differ. See Order denying defendants’ motion to

dismiss, dated March 26, 2025 (document no. 116). Having

carefully consider the matter, as well as the legal memoranda

submitted by the parties, and for the reasons set forth in the

order dated March 26, the court concludes that the Amended

Complaint plausibly (if barely) alleges sufficient facts to vest

both the institutional and individual plaintiffs with standing

to bring the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint.

Consequently, the court does not adopt that portion of the

Report and Recommendation addressing the institutional

plaintiffs’ standing.

Nevertheless, for the remaining reasons set forth in the

Report and Recommendation – that is, that plaintiffs failed to

establish that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence

of injunctive relief and that plaintiffs’ request for injunctive

relief is not sufficiently specific - the court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that plaintiffs have not met their

burden to demonstrate entitlement to the preliminary injunctive

relief they seek.

4 Conclusion

After due consideration of the objection filed, the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Talesha Saint-Marc dated

September 19, 2024 (document no. 99), is approved – albeit not

entirely for the reasons given. The institutional plaintiffs

have standing to pursue the claims set forth in the Amended

Complaint, but none of the plaintiffs has demonstrated

entitlement to the preliminary injunctive relief sought.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Preliminary

Injunction (document no. 71) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

March 27, 2025

cc: Counsel of Record