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).
Notwithstanding this majority view among district courts, the McComb Court could not rely on any binding precedent. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the issue. In fact, only one federal appellate court has addressed this question directly, and it determined that there is no private right of action under section 227(e)(1). See Trupia v. Bob Moore Enters, LLC, 2026 WL 1506611 (10th Cir. May 29, 2026). In the last several years, however, some district courts within the Sixth Circuit have reached opposite results. See, e.g., Dobronski v. CHW Grp., Inc., 2025 WL 2426370 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2025) (concluding that because the TCPA was amended to add section 227(e) after the promulgation of the Truth in Caller ID Act, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(e), a caller ID requirement “seems to use a telephone network technology to help protect privacy rights and thus must derive its authority from § 227(c), which includes a private right of action”).
McComb provides a helpful reminder to assess whether a particular provision in the TCPA may not be enforced through a private lawsuit. As the law continues to develop in this area, defendants facing claims under section 227(e) should take note of the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Trupia and the majority of district court decisions — including McComb — that have declined to find the existence of a private right of action for calls sent with misleading or inaccurate caller ID information.
