Jerry Clark is the sole proprietor of Affordable Digital Hearing, which does business by repairing hearing aids. In June 2006, Clark received a call from Kevin Wilson, a representative of Business-2-Business Solutions (B2B), who was offering to sell facsimile advertising services. Facsimile advertisements are ads sent by fax. Clark informed Wilson that he was not interested, but changed his mind after receiving a second phone call from Wilson. Over the course of the negotiations, Clark authorized B2B to send about 100 ads to local businesses within 20 miles of Terre Haute, Indiana, where Wilson’s business was located. However, B2B sent 6,000 fax ads not only within the 20-mile radius of Terre Haute, but also to other areas, including Cleveland, Ohio, Northern Indiana, and the Chicagoland area. As a result, Clark was the target of a certified class action represented by Bridgeview Health Care Center LTD., an Illinois-based corporation, for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protections Act. In the class action proceedings, the court ruled that Clark was liable only for the facsimile advertisements sent within a 20-mile radius of Terre Haute. However, the court did not find Clark liable for facsimile advertisements sent outside the area as it was not authorized by Clark, citing the FCC’s position that the TCPA incorporates traditional rules of vicarious liability. Bridgeview immediately filed a motion to alter judgment, contending that the court erred in interpreting the TCPA’s junk-fax provisions as incorporating principles of vicarious liability instead of direct liability. Clark also filed a motion to reconsider, contending that because Bridgeview was outside of the 20-mile radius of Terre Haute, the court should decertify the class and vacate any money judgments to the plaintiffs. What is the difference between vicarious liability and direct liability? How would either kind of liability impact the court if it were applied? How did the court rule on the motion to alter judgment?