Articles by :


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”