However, Van Patten explicitly held that a violation of the TCPA, without more, is sufficient to establish standing because Congress sought to protect consumers from unwanted phone calls and "fax advertisements." 847 F.3d at 1043; see Brinker v. Normandin's, 2017 WL 1425916, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2017) (holding that in wake of Van Patten, the plaintiffs' allegation of unsolicited text messages in violation of TCPA was sufficient to find standing).
In light of the Ninth Circuit's holding in Van Patten, the court finds plaintiffs' allegations concerning defendant's making of over 1,000 incessant phone calls within a span of five years (id. at ΒΆΒΆ 26-31) to be sufficient to allege a concrete injury-in-fact under the TCPA. See Quinones, 2017 WL 4641083, at *2 ("At the pleading stage, Quinones has adequately set forth an adequate injury caused by defendant's recurring debt collection calls, to which he claims he did not consent."); see also Crooks, 2017 WL 4541742, at *5 (noting that the unsolicited calls made by defendant and disruption to plaintiff's daily life was "sufficient to establish a concrete, particularized injury-in-fact resulting from defendant's alleged calls."); Brinker v. Normandin's, No. 5:14-CV-03007-EJD, 2017 WL 1425916, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2017) (same); Flores v. Access Ins. Co., Case No. 2:15-cv-02883-CAS(AGRx), 2017 WL 986516, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017) (same). Defendant's alleged behavior reflects the very invasion of privacy Congress intended to prohibit by enacting the TCPA.