2025 - TCPA Blog

Articles by :

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”

Sixth Circuit Finds That High Volume of Calls Does Not in and of Itself Make TCPA Claims Plausible

The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a serial pro se litigant’s TCPA claims for failure to allege enough factual support. The case provides a useful primer on what a plaintiff must allege to state a claim under the TCPA’s autodialer or artificial/prerecorded voice provisions.

In Fluker v. Ally Fin., Inc., 2025 WL 1827747, at *1 (6th Cir. July 2, 2025), the plaintiff alleged violations of the TCPA arising from hundreds of debt collection calls that had allegedly been placed without his prior consent. The trial court held that Fluker had “fail[ed] to plausibly allege that Ally [Financial] made the phone calls using either (1) an automatic telephone dialing system, or (2) an artificial or prerecorded voice.” Id. at *2 (citing Fluker v. Ally Fin. Inc., 2023 WL 8881154, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2023)). The Sixth Circuit reviewed that dismissal de novo, finding that neither claim had been properly pleaded.

Continue reading “Sixth Circuit Finds That High Volume of Calls Does Not in and of Itself Make TCPA Claims Plausible”

Court Finds TCPA’s Fax Restrictions Do Not Apply to Online Services; Denies Class Certification Because Plaintiff Could Not Tell How Each Class Member Received Fax

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently denied a plaintiff’s motion to certify a 25,000-member class in a TCPA fax action. See Fischbein v. IQVIA, Inc., No. 19-5365 (E.D. Pa. June 5, 2025).

Plaintiff alleged that IQVIA, a research organization that collects health data, faxed advertisements to over 25,000 health care providers without prior express permission. While analyzing whether members of the proposed class would be ascertainable, the court addressed — for the first time in the Third Circuit — the question of “whether the TCPA’s protection is limited to faxes received on stand-alone fax machines or extends to faxes received by way of online fax services.” The court sided with other circuit courts that have addressed this issue, concluding that “the plain language of the TCPA protects only those who receive unsolicited advertisements on a stand-alone fax machine” — not through an online fax service. (Note that this issue was also addressed in a recent Colorado decision.)

Continue reading “Court Finds TCPA’s Fax Restrictions Do Not Apply to Online Services; Denies Class Certification Because Plaintiff Could Not Tell How Each Class Member Received Fax”

FCCPA Amended to Expressly Allow After-Hours Debt-Collection Emails

Florida’s governor recently signed Senate Bill 232, amending Fla. Stat. § 559.72(17). Subsection 17 prohibits certain debt-collection “communications” to debtors between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. Senate Bill 232 now clarifies that Subsection 17 does not apply to emails, ending the ambiguity that litigants faced due to differing court decisions. Given the proliferation of debt collection emails — which are used by 74% of debt collectors — Senate Bill 232’s enactment cuts off a significant source of potential liability.

Read the full article on the Faegre Drinker website

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.

Sixth Circuit Confirms that Fax Advertisements Can Violate TCPA Even If Sender is Not Seller

The Sixth Circuit recently clarified that faxes may constitute “advertisements” under the TCPA, thus potentially making the sender liable, even when the products referenced in the faxes are not being sold by the sender. See Lyngaas v. United Concordia Companies, Inc., — F. 4th —, 2025 WL 1625517 (6th Cir. 2025) (available here).

In Lyngaas, the district court had granted summary judgment in favor of United Concordia Companies, Inc. (UCCI) where it sent faxes to dentist members of its Fee for Service Dental Network that advertised discounted products sold by third-party vendors. The district court had reasoned that the faxes were not “advertisements,” in part because UCCI’s profit incentive was too remote.

Continue reading “Sixth Circuit Confirms that Fax Advertisements Can Violate TCPA Even If Sender is Not Seller”

Articles by :

At a Glance