Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez

Supreme Court of the United States · 2016 · Federal Courts

577 U.S. 153 (2016)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtsmootnessunaccepted offersArticle IIIRule 68unaccepted offercase or controversyTCPA

Facts

The Navy hired Campbell-Ewald Company to run a recruiting campaign that included text messages, but only to individuals who had opted in to receive such solicitations. Campbell's subcontractor sent the message to over 100,000 recipients, including Gomez, who alleged he had not consented and was nearly 40 years old rather than in the target age group of 18 to 24. Before Gomez moved for class certification, Campbell made a settlement offer and a Rule 68 offer of judgment that would have satisfied Gomez's individual damages claim and proposed an injunction, but Gomez did not accept either offer. Campbell then argued that the unaccepted offer mooted Gomez's claim and that, as a federal contractor acting for the Navy, it was immune from suit.

Issue

Does an unaccepted settlement offer or Rule 68 offer of judgment that would fully satisfy a named plaintiff's individual claim moot the case under Article III? If not, is a federal contractor immune from TCPA liability when it allegedly violated both federal law and the government's express instructions?

Rule

An unaccepted settlement offer or Rule 68 offer of judgment has no continuing legal effect and does not moot a plaintiff's case because, once rejected, it leaves the parties adverse and the plaintiff without actual relief. A federal contractor is not entitled to the sovereign's blanket immunity; at most, a contractor is shielded when it simply performs as the Government validly directed, but not when it exceeds its authority or violates the Government's explicit instructions or federal law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Chicago, Lena Ortiz sued North Shore Alerts LLC under a federal statute that authorizes $1,000 in statutory damages per violation and injunctive relief. Before trial, the company served a Rule 68 offer promising the maximum damages Lena could recover on her individual claim, plus costs, and proposing an injunction limited to Lena; she did not accept within 14 days.

Should the district court dismiss Lena's individual claim as moot?

Explanation. The majority held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer has no continuing efficacy. Once rejected or allowed to lapse, it is treated as withdrawn, creates no lasting rights or obligations, and leaves the plaintiff emptyhanded. Because a case is moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief, Lena's individual claim remains live.