A judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently granted summary judgment for defendant JR Capital upon finding that the text messages at issue were sent to a business line, not a “residential” phone number. See Newell v. JR Capital, LLC, 2026 WL 2408527 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2026). While the court did not go so far as deciding, as other courts have done, that cell phones categorically are not “residential,” the opinion still provides a helpful demonstration of how a defendant can establish that a phone number is primarily being used for business purposes.
The plaintiff, Mr. Newell, alleged that he received five telemarketing messages from JR Capital at his mobile number ending in 4132 (“4132 number”). For plaintiff to have standing to bring the particular TCPA claims at issue, the 4132 number had to be “residential” — not a business line. JR Capital sought summary judgment, arguing that the 4132 number was for business purposes.
The evidence showed that plaintiff had originally used the 4132 number as the sole contact number for his landscaping business. Although he later acquired a second phone number that he claimed was his primary business line, he continued to use the 4132 number in connection with his business. Indeed, when he registered his business with the state and federal government, his filings listed the 4132 number. JR Capital, for its part, had obtained the 4132 number by subscribing to a commercial database containing contact information for businesses, including plaintiff’s.
Initially, the court found that plaintiff was equitably estopped from pursuing claims based on the allegation that his phone number was “residential.” The court reasoned that plaintiff had listed the 4132 number for his business in recent government filings, and, for his federal registration, he had not even changed his business contact information (to his second phone number) until four months after the litigation began. Critically, plaintiff had also admitted during discovery that he still used the 4132 number for his business.
Next, the court found that, because plaintiff used the 4132 number primarily for business purposes, he lacked standing to sue. The court adopted the Ninth Circuit’s multi-factor test from Chennette v. Porch.com, 50 F.4th 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2022), which the Pennsylvania court described as an objective, “case-by-case evaluation” to determine if a reasonable observer would view a phone number as primarily for residential or business purposes. The factors include:
- how the plaintiff holds the phone number out to the public;
- whether the plaintiff’s phone is registered with the telephone company as a residential or business line;
- how much the plaintiff uses their phone for business or employment;
- who pays for the phone bills; and
- other factors bearing on how a reasonable observer would view the phone line.
See Chennette, 50 F.4th at 1225. Applying the factors here, the court concluded that “no reasonable jury could find that the 4132 number was a residential number during the period [Plaintiff] received the telemarketing texts.” The court cited various facts, including that plaintiff still used the 4132 number for his business; listed the 4132 number on two government registrations as a business number; and did not remove the 4132 number from the federal registration until four months after the litigation began. Although the 4132 number was part of a consumer phone plan and billed to plaintiff’s home address, the court determined that, on balance, the remaining facts demonstrated that the 4132 number was not “residential.”
This case demonstrates how plaintiffs may be bound by their public representations with regard to whether a phone number is residential or for business purposes. It also serves as a helpful reminder to pressure-test all of the facts, rather than relying on a plaintiff’s allegations about the nature of a phone number. Lastly, defendants facing class actions should consider using the Ninth Circuit’s multi-factor test to oppose class certification, as the issue of whether a phone number is residential — or not — requires a fact-intensive, individualized inquiry that may preclude class treatment.
