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”

Defendants’ Alleged Self-Identification and the Rule 12(b)(6) Pleading Standard

The Northern District of California recently let most of a plaintiff’s TCPA claims survive a motion to dismiss, a timely reminder of the federal courts’ plausibility standard. The case is Koeller v. TD Synnex Corp., No. 26-1102, 2026 WL 1963045 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2026).

According to the plaintiff, he had placed his phone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Despite that registration, he allegedly received telemarketing calls between January and February 2026 from callers who identified themselves as representing TD Synnex and who were trying to sell endpoint security products. He alleged that he told the first caller that his number was on the Do-Not-Call Registry and asked not to be contacted again, but TD Synnex representatives called him two more times anyway. He filed suit under the TCPA.

Continue reading “Defendants’ Alleged Self-Identification and the Rule 12(b)(6) Pleading Standard”

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”

Fifth Circuit Find’s FCC’s “Prior Express Written Consent” Rule Exceeded Its Statutory Authority

The Fifth Circuit has rejected the FCC rule that has imposed a heightened “prior express written consent” requirement—a requirement found nowhere in the TCPA’s plain language—for more than a decade.  See Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of Texas, Inc., No. 24-20379, 2026 WL 520620, at *3 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2026). Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), it found that the “prior express written consent” rule is unenforceable because the FCC had exceeded its statutory authority in enacting it.

From 1991 to 2012 — more than 20 years — it had been the FCC’s consistent position that consent can be “expressed” simply by providing one’s number — i.e., without a “written” or “signed” agreement. See, e.g., In re Rules & Reguls. Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 7 FCC Rcd. 8752, ¶ 31 (1992) (“[P]ersons who knowingly release their phone numbers have in effect given their invitation or permission to be called…”). It was not until 2013 that the FCC reversed course, enacting a rule requiring that consent for certain communication not only be “express” but also that it be “written,” “bear[] the signature of the person called,” and include various and sundry disclosures the FCC deemed desirable. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200(f)(9).

Continue reading “Fifth Circuit Find’s FCC’s “Prior Express Written Consent” Rule Exceeded Its Statutory Authority”

TCPA Case Tossed Because Defendant’s Unequivocal Records Trumped Plaintiff’s Equivocal Recollection

A Texas district court entered summary judgment against a plaintiff who had brought TCPA claims against a debt collector, finding no genuine issue of fact because the plaintiff’s recollection was equivocal and the defendant’s records were not. The case is Anderson v. Monterey Financial Services, LLC, No. 6:25-cv-00102, 2026 WL 318773 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2026), in which the magistrate judge recommended granting the motion. That report and recommendation was adopted by the district court at 2026 WL 316533 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2026).

The plaintiff had sued Monterey Financial Services, LLC, claiming it had violated the TCPA by calling his cellphone in an effort to collect a debt, including after he had instructed it to stop calling him. The case was before the court on Monterey’s motion for summary judgment.

Continue reading “TCPA Case Tossed Because Defendant’s Unequivocal Records Trumped Plaintiff’s Equivocal Recollection”

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”