Matthew J. Adler, Author at TCPA Blog

Matthew J. Adler

Matthew Adler is a trusted advocate and counselor who litigates complex commercial disputes and putative class actions for companies in the retail, technology, insurance, automotive, construction and telecommunications industries. He is known to be a persuasive writer and even-keeled problem-solver who provides practical, cost-effective solutions for his clients. Matt has defended numerous class actions, in state and federal court, involving claims of false advertising, fraud, breach of contract, breach of warranty and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and of California’s consumer protection statutes, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the False Advertising Law (FAL), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

View the full bio for Matthew J. Adler at the Faegre Drinker website.

Articles by Matthew J. Adler:

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”

Court Finds Political Texts Were Not Solicitations, Dismisses Do Not Call Claim

Each election cycle includes at least one cautionary tale about potential pitfalls of political calling. This one was no exception, as the Northern District of Illinois provided a helpful reminder that, depending on their content, political communications could be considered “solicitations” such that certain calling restrictions apply. See Evers v. CampaignSidekick, LLC, No. 24 CV 11067, 2025 WL 2896818 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2025).

The Plaintiff in Evers sued CampaignSidekick, a vendor that promotes voter outreach. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserted claims about: (1) using a prerecorded voice; and (2) calling numbers that were on the National DNC Registry.

Continue reading “Court Finds Political Texts Were Not Solicitations, Dismisses Do Not Call Claim”

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”

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”

Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit, Finding Alleged Faxes Were Not Sent to a “Telephone Facsimile Machine”

The TCPA generally prohibits the transmission of an “unsolicited advertisement” to a “telephone facsimile machine.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(c). But is an “online fax service” a “telephone facsimile machine”? And can a plaintiff state a claim based on faxes that were sent to its “online fax service”? The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado recently answered both questions in the negative. See Astro Companies, LLC v. Westfax, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-02328 (D. Colo. Feb. 12, 2025).

Plaintiff Astro Companies, LLC (Astro) alleged that it is an online fax service provider that uses a fax server to convert “traditional faxes” into readable formats (such as a PDF), which are then either emailed to the recipient or made available online to be viewed (and potentially printed) at the recipient’s convenience. Astro sued multiple companies, claiming it had received “junk” faxes in violation of the TCPA. Even accepting Astro’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true, the court granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss, found Astro failed to state a claim, and, ultimately, dismissed the action with prejudice.

Continue reading “Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit, Finding Alleged Faxes Were Not Sent to a “Telephone Facsimile Machine””

Federal Court Dismisses Action for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Due to Insufficient Agency Relationship

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana demonstrates how a defendant may successfully challenge personal jurisdiction when the facts fail to show vicarious liability through a principal-agent relationship.

In Roehrman v. McAfee, LLC, No. 23-2146, 2024 WL 5008043, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 6, 2024), the plaintiff sued McAfee, claiming TCPA violations based on allegedly unsolicited text messages that advertised McAfee’s services. McAfee moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it had not sent the texts at issue. Instead, they were sent by subcontractors (or sub-subcontractors) of one of McAfee’s vendors, without authorization by McAfee. Id. After learning of the texts, McAfee had sent cease-and-desist letters, stating that the text messages violated McAfee’s vendor terms. Id.

Continue reading “Federal Court Dismisses Action for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Due to Insufficient Agency Relationship”

Supreme Court to Address FCC’s Authority in TCPA Cases: McLaughlin v. McKesson Cert Grant

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation (No. 23-1226) to address whether the Hobbs Act requires district courts to follow the FCC’s interpretation that the TCPA does not prohibit faxes received via “online fax services.” This case revisits a key question left unresolved in 2019’s PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic about the binding nature of FCC orders in TCPA litigation. The Court’s decision could potentially determine whether and to what extent courts must follow FCC interpretations in TCPA cases going forward. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.