TCPA Blog

Michigan Federal Court Dismisses Do-Not-Call Claim, Finding Plaintiff’s Registration of a Business Phone Number Was Void

A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently dismissed a do-not-call claim, finding the plaintiff’s phone number was used for business purposes at the time it was placed on the Do-Not-Call Registry — and thus the registration was void. Dobronski v. Tony Packo’s Toledo, LLC, No. 25-13117, 2026 WL 2969611 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 2, 2026). The decision provides a helpful reminder to investigate the full history of a plaintiff’s phone number at the outset, as that history could supply a complete defense at the pleading stage.

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant had sent him three telemarketing texts in 2025 to a number that was “residential” and had been placed on the Registry in 2003. The defendant moved to dismiss, pointing to public records and plaintiff’s prior litigation filings, which showed that his number had been used as a business line prior to registration and well after that (i.e., from 2001 through 2020). The plaintiff conceded these facts but stated that he had retired and had used the number exclusively for personal purposes since 2022 — years before he received the text messages at issue. The plaintiff relied on Shelton v. Professional Source Lending Group LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46534 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2025) (Shelton II), which allowed do-not-call claims to proceed where a plaintiff had placed his personal number on the Registry, later used it for business purposes, and then resumed using the number as a personal line.

Continue reading “Michigan Federal Court Dismisses Do-Not-Call Claim, Finding Plaintiff’s Registration of a Business Phone Number Was Void”

Business or Residential Number? Court Adopts Ninth Circuit’s Test and Grants Summary Judgment for Defendant

A judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently granted summary judgment for defendant JR Capital upon finding that the text messages at issue were sent to a business line, not a “residential” phone number. See Newell v. JR Capital, LLC, 2026 WL 2408527 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2026). While the court did not go so far as deciding, as other courts have done, that cell phones categorically are not “residential,” the opinion still provides a helpful demonstration of how a defendant can establish that a phone number is primarily being used for business purposes.

The plaintiff, Mr. Newell, alleged that he received five telemarketing messages from JR Capital at his mobile number ending in 4132 (“4132 number”). For plaintiff to have standing to bring the particular TCPA claims at issue, the 4132 number had to be “residential” — not a business line. JR Capital sought summary judgment, arguing that the 4132 number was for business purposes.

Continue reading “Business or Residential Number? Court Adopts Ninth Circuit’s Test and Grants Summary Judgment for Defendant”

Seventh Circuit Finds that Private Right of Action for Do-Not-Call Violations Does Not Apply to Text Messages

The Seventh Circuit has become the first federal circuit court of appeals to address whether the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call provision, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), creates a private right of action for unwanted text messages, holding that it does not and that the provision’s private right of action is limited to phone calls. Steidinger v. Blackstone Med. Servs., No. 25-2398, 2026 WL 2028517 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026) (Kirsch, J.). Our coverage of the lower court decision it affirmed can be found here.

The court based its decision on “the ordinary public meaning of telephone call at the time of the TCPA’s enactment” and “the context provided by surrounding provisions of § 227.” Id. at *1. Regarding the statute’s ordinary public meaning, the court explained that “telephone call” could not have covered text messages in 1991 — when the TCPA was enacted — because the first text message was not sent until the following year. Id. at *2. Further, in 1991, “telephone call” referred to communication via sound. Because text messages do not reproduce sounds, they do not qualify as a new application of that term. Id.

Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Finds that Private Right of Action for Do-Not-Call Violations Does Not Apply to Text Messages”

Southern District of Ohio Finds No Private Right of Action for Caller ID Violations

Among its various restrictions, the TCPA makes it unlawful “to cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1). A single violation of this provision may result in a civil penalty of up to $10,000 — or up to $30,000 “for each day of a continuing violation.” Id. § 227(e)(5). And although the statute expressly provides for enforcement by federal or state regulators, individual consumers have attempted to bring claims under the TCPA for violations of this provision. Recently, the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio determined that there is no private right of action under section 227(e)(1). See McComb v. Joel Bray Lackey, 2026 WL 1837653 (S.D. Ohio June 25, 2026).

The court concluded that “while certain subsections of § 227 contain explicit private rights of action . . . subsection § 227(e) does not.” Id. at *6. Indeed, this conclusion is in good company; several district courts across the country have similarly found that section 227(e) does not provide a private right of action. See, e.g., Cunningham v. Creative Edge Mrktg., LLC, 2021 WL 3085415 (E.D. Tex. June 16, 2021); McDermet v. John C. Heath, Attorney at Law, PLLC, 2018 WL 627371 (D. Mass. Jan. 30, 2018); Free Conferencing Corp. v. Comcast Corp., 2016 WL 7637664 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2016); Clark v. Avatar Tech. Phl, Inc., 2014 WL 1342033 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2014).

Continue reading “Southern District of Ohio Finds No Private Right of Action for Caller ID Violations”

Washington Federal Court Dismisses TCPA Claims, Finding Insufficient Allegations of Vicarious Liability

A federal court in Washington recently dismissed TCPA claims against two insurance companies where the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege their vicarious liability. See Sundstrom v. Ocean Reef Media LLC, No. 26-5036, 2026 WL 1361646 (W.D. Wash. May 15, 2026). The decision reinforces the principle that allegations of vicarious liability require facts showing a plausible agency relationship, rather than speculative inferences.

The plaintiff alleged that she received 70 unsolicited text messages from various telemarketers, which solicited insurance services for the two insurance company defendants. The plaintiff, whose phone number was on the national Do Not Call registry, brought individual and class claims against the telemarketers and two insurance companies. The parties conceded that neither insurance company actually sent the text messages at issue, which left the plaintiff with only a theory of vicarious liability. The plaintiff claimed that the insurers and telemarketers had a principal-agent relationship, based on a theory of apparent authority. The two insurers moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to allege that the telemarketers were acting as their agents.

Continue reading “Washington Federal Court Dismisses TCPA Claims, Finding Insufficient Allegations of Vicarious Liability”

W.D. Texas Dismisses TCPA Claims at Pleading Stage for Failure to Adequately Allege Vicarious Liability

A federal court in Texas recently granted a motion to dismiss TCPA claims where the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that unidentified third-party telemarketers were acting as agents of the defendant, a question that is more often tested at summary judgment than at the pleading stage.

In Ortega v. Powur, PBC, No. 5:25-cv-0864-JKP, 2026 WL 711813 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2026), the pro se plaintiff alleged that he received multiple unsolicited telemarketing calls in April 2025 marketing solar products, despite having registered his number with the National Do-Not-Call Registry in 2012 and making repeated requests that the calls stop. When the calls persisted, the plaintiff feigned interest in order to schedule an appointment and identify the caller. During that call, the telemarketer used a fictitious business name and provided a nonexistent website address. The following day, a man identifying himself as Jose Daniel Laveaga called, identified himself as being from Powur, PBC, and stated that the earlier calls had come from Powur’s “marketing team.”

Continue reading “W.D. Texas Dismisses TCPA Claims at Pleading Stage for Failure to Adequately Allege Vicarious Liability”

Ohio Federal Court Rules TCPA’s DNC Provision Doesn’t Permit Text Message Lawsuits

A federal judge in the Northern District of Ohio recently held that text messages are not subject to the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call provision because they are not “calls” within the meaning of the statute. Stockdale v. Skymount Prop. Grp., LLC, et al., 2026 WL 591842 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 3, 2026).

In Stockdale, Plaintiff alleged that she received text messages from Defendants for several years after she placed her phone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint did not state a cognizable claim under the TCPA because the plain language of Section 227(c)(5) is limited to “telephone calls” and does not include text messages.

Continue reading “Ohio Federal Court Rules TCPA’s DNC Provision Doesn’t Permit Text Message Lawsuits”

Courts in Eleventh Circuit Find No Private Right of Action Under 227(c) for Texts

District courts in the Eleventh Circuit are increasingly finding that the private right of action for violation of the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call provisions does not apply to text messages. More recently, three judges in that Circuit dismissed claims under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), holding that the statute’s reference to “telephone calls” does not extend to text messages. See Radvansky v. Kendo Holdings, Inc., 23-0214, Dkt. 57 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 12, 2026) (May, C.J.) (entering judgment on the pleadings; this decision is now on appeal before the Eleventh Circuit); Radvansky v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., 2026 WL 456919, at *3-5 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 17, 2026) (Thrash, J.) (granting motion to dismiss); Lopresti v. Nouveau Essentials Mktg. LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39599, at *6-13 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2026) (Lammens, M.J.) (recommendation to enter judgment on the pleadings). The Lopresti court also dismissed a claim under Section 227(b), which restricts the use of automated telephone equipment, for the same reason. Lopresti, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39599, at *11-12.

These decisions are consistent with several earlier decisions in the Eleventh Circuit and one in the Central District of Illinois. See McGonigle v. Pure Green Franchise Corp., 2026 WL 111338 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2026) (Singhal, J.) (granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss); El Sayed v. Naturopathica Holistic Health, Inc., 2025 WL 2997759, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2025) (Merryday, J.) (granting motion to dismiss); Davis v. CVS Pharm., Inc., 797 F.Supp.3d 1270, 1272 (N.D. Fla. 2025) (Winsor, C.J.) (granting motion to dismiss); see also Jones v. Blackstone Med. Servs., LLC, 792 F.Supp.3d 894 (C.D. Ill. 2025) (Hawley, J.) (granting motion to dismiss; this decision is now on appeal before the Seventh Circuit).

Continue reading “Courts in Eleventh Circuit Find No Private Right of Action Under 227(c) for Texts”