FCC Actions Archives

Category - "FCC Actions"

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”

Florida Federal Court Stays Discovery Pending Decision on Whether Texts Qualify as Calls Under TCPA

A judge in the Southern District of Florida recently granted a defendant’s motion to stay discovery in a case involving alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), pending resolution of the defendant’s motion to dismiss arguing that a text is not a “call” within the meaning of the TCPA. See McGonigle v. Pure Green Franchise Corp., 2026 WL 111338 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2026).

The court explained that “resolv[ing] the issue of whether § 227(c) [of the TCPA] includes a cause of action for text messages by exercising our ‘special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities’” is “a question of law that does not require discovery.” Id. at *2.

Continue reading “Florida Federal Court Stays Discovery Pending Decision on Whether Texts Qualify as Calls Under TCPA”

Another Florida Federal Court Finds Do-Not-Call Regulation Inapplicable to Text Messages

A judge in the Middle District of Florida recently dismissed Do-Not-Call claims under the TCPA, holding that “a text message is not a telephone call.” El Sayed v. Naturopathica Holistic Health, Inc., 2025 WL 2997759, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2025).

The court explained that “it is only th[r]ough the rulemaking authority of the FCC that the voice call provisions of the TCPA have been extended to text messages. … However, a District Court is not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA.” Id. at 1.

Continue reading “Another Florida Federal Court Finds Do-Not-Call Regulation Inapplicable to Text Messages”

Second Court Rules Do-Not-Call Regulation Does Not Apply to Text Messages

A Florida federal court recently dismissed Do-Not-Call claims, holding that “a text message is not a ‘telephone call.’” Davis v. CVS Pharm., Inc., No. 24-0477, 2025 WL 2491195 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025).

In Davis, the plaintiff alleged that CVS sent him unwanted text messages in violation of regulations prohibiting calls to individuals registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).

Continue reading “Second Court Rules Do-Not-Call Regulation Does Not Apply to Text Messages”

McLaughlin and Loper Bright Lead to Decision That TCPA Does Not Apply to Texts

A federal court recently dismissed Do-Not-Call claims after finding that, “based on a plain reading of the TCPA and its implementing regulations,” 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) “does not apply to text messages.” Jones v. Blackstone Med. Servs., LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01074, 2025 WL 2042764 (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2025).

In Jones, the plaintiffs alleged that they had received telemarketing texts about the defendant’s home sleep tests, despite their having placed their numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and/or asking to be placed on the defendant’s Do-Not Call list. (Although they also made passing references to “calls” as well as “texts,” the court found that those allegations were neither well pleaded nor the crux of the claim.) They filed suit under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), which concerns violations of Do-Not-Call rules.

Continue reading “McLaughlin and Loper Bright Lead to Decision That TCPA Does Not Apply to Texts”

Supreme Court Decides McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v McKesson Corp.

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226, holding that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits a business from sending an “unsolicited advertisement” by fax to a “telephone facsimile machine” absent an opt-out notice informing recipients that they can choose not to receive future faxes. A recipient of a fax that lacks the required opt-out notice may sue the sender for damages and injunctive relief. The TCPA sets a floor of $500 in damages for each unlawful fax.

Read the full article on the Faegre Drinker website.

More TCPA Calling and Texting Restrictions Proposed by the FCC

At the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC”) June 8 Open Meeting, the Commissioners voted to adopt a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Notice”) designed to clarify and expand upon the ability of consumers to decide what calls or texts subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) they wish to receive. The Notice addresses pending but unresolved petitions for declaratory rulings filed by a range of entities seeking clarification of a variety of TCPA policies. The Notice also highlights the agency’s intention to adopt specific rules codifying stated FCC policies contained in prior orders so that consumer rights are “clear” and easy to understand. Each of the areas addressed by the Notice could affect the compliance programs of callers and texters, and the Notice thus represents an opportunity to inform the FCC of practical consequences of its proposals before it acts to adopt new rules.

Revocation of Consent in “Any Reasonable Way”

In its 2015 Declaratory Ruling, the FCC stated that consumers who had provided prior express consent to receive autodialed or pre-recorded voice calls are free to revoke that consent through any reasonable means of notification to the calling or texting party. The Notice proposes to formally adopt a rule incorporating that flexibility and prohibiting calling or texting parties from designating any exclusive means to revoke consent. The proposed rule states that reasonable revocation methods “typically” include text messages, voicemail or email to any phone number or email address where the consumer “can reasonably expect” to reach the caller. The Notice calls out the use of “STOP” as a widely recognized means of revoking consent and proposes that the FCC employ a presumption that such a message, if sent, it is to be treated as a revocation of consent message. If text initiators do not allow or enable a reply to text function, then the FCC proposes that that entity be required to provide clear and conspicuous disclosure on each text as to how to revoke consent.

Continue reading “More TCPA Calling and Texting Restrictions Proposed by the FCC”

Texas District Court Rejects “Influence Liability” Workaround to FCC Exemption for Research and Surveys

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas reaffirms the FCC’s interpretation that calls and text messages regarding consumer surveys and other market research do not qualify as restricted “telephone solicitations” or “telemarketing” under the TCPA or its implementing regulations. Although the outcome in this case is a positive development, organizations that engage in these types of communications should continue to monitor and assess the state of the law in other jurisdictions.

In Hunsinger v. Dynata LLC, the plaintiff was a serial pro se TCPA litigant whose phone number was registered on the FCC’s national do-not-call list at all relevant times. No. 22-cv-136-G-BT, 2023 WL 2377481, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2023). Mr. Hunsinger alleged that he received a single call from an unidentified caller asking him to visit Dynata’s website. Id. Hunsinger thereafter sent a letter demanding a copy of Dynata’s DNC policy, but Dynata declined and argued that Hunsinger had no legal basis for his demand. Id. Hunsinger claimed that he directed Dynata to place his number on its internal DNC list but that he subsequently received a single SMS text message that contained a link to another website affiliated with Dynata. Id. at *2.

Continue reading “Texas District Court Rejects “Influence Liability” Workaround to FCC Exemption for Research and Surveys”