TCPA Blog

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”

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”

Court Revisits Ascertainability, Reaffirms Class Certification Denial

Kate C. Goldberg contributed to writing this article.

In TCPA litigation, one of the most important goals of any defendant is to ensure that the class certification prerequisites are scrupulously applied and that no class is certified unless those requirements are clearly satisfied. A sprawling class action with potential aggregate statutory damages multiplied by hundreds or thousands of calls, texts or faxes takes what would be a modest individual case to a threat to the corporate defendant’s balance sheet. Thus, we are always eager to report on decisions examining the standards for class certification of TCPA claims.

One such recent case is Brian J. Lyngaas, DDS, PLLC v. IQVIA, Inc., which turned on the threshold issue of class ascertainability and whether transmission of a fax from a covered entity necessarily means that a class member received a fax. In Lyngaas, the plaintiff was a dental practice that claimed defendant IQVIA sent unsolicited fax advertisements inviting participation in a health care survey. Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C. v. IQVIA, Inc., No. 20-2370, 2025 WL 3565507 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2025). As the court noted, ascertainability requires 1) that the class be defined by reference to objective criteria and 2) that there is a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition. Id. at *1-2.

Continue reading “Court Revisits Ascertainability, Reaffirms Class Certification Denial”