Pennsylvania is giving businesses less than three months to overhaul how they call and text customers. Beginning October 18, 2026, the state’s telemarketing law will expressly cover text messages, voicemails, and ringless voicemails, impose stricter consent and opt-out rules, shorten permissible calling hours, and increase litigation risk.

Been hit with a recent California website privacy demand letter or lawsuit? Here is some welcome news. A federal court just declared serial plaintiff Vivek Shah a vexatious litigant after finding that his litigation history showed an effort to pressure businesses into “coercive settlements.” Shah v. Crain Communications, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-03070-RGK-CTS (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2026).

Businesses facing TCPA claims over marketing texts now have a significant new defense in the Seventh Circuit. In Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20613 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), the Seventh Circuit held that the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call provision does not allow consumers to sue based on unwanted texts

Businesses often assume that once a customer agrees to an arbitration provision, TCPA claims will be headed to arbitration rather than court. A recent decision from the Northern District of California shows that the analysis doesn’t end there.

Your AI chatbot may be creating litigation risk you don't yet see. Twelve states have enacted, or are on the verge of enacting, laws regulating consumer-facing AI chatbots. Although most of these laws will not take effect until 2027, businesses should begin preparing now.

If your company relies on lead generators, marketing vendors, or other third parties to place telemarketing calls, a new Seventh Circuit decision provides important guidance on when your business may, and may not, be responsible for their mistakes.

A real estate investor’s “we buy houses” text may look like a simple purchase inquiry. But a new Ninth Circuit ruling suggests that may not end the TCPA analysis. In Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer, LLC, the court revived a TCPA do-not-call claim, holding that courts may consider why a message was sent, not just what it said.

If your business has been sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in Texas, you've probably seen it before: a plaintiff adds a claim alleging the company failed to obtain a Texas telephone solicitation registration certificate.

The Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s ability to pursue millions of dollars in penalties against companies accused of violating privacy laws, rejecting a challenge by AT&T and Verizon over nearly $100 million in fines tied to customer location data.

A common sales pitch in the real estate industry goes something like this: ringless voicemail is safer because the consumer’s phone never rings. No interruption. No annoyance. No problems under the TCPA. That theory has now fueled years of TCPA litigation.

Businesses facing the growing wave of website tracking litigation should pay close attention to a recent Illinois federal court decision involving Hyatt Hotels. In Juhyun So v. Hyatt Hotels Corp., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98893 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2026), the court dismissed a federal Wiretap Act claim based on Meta and Adobe tracking technology embedded on Hyatt’s booking website.

Long hold times, repeated transfers, and hesitation around sharing sensitive information are common features of many customer service interactions. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is now examining how those experiences are shaped, particularly when call centers are located outside the United States.

What happens when a healthcare call reaches the wrong person? The Northern District of New York suggests not much under the TCPA. In Davis v. Healthplex, Inc., 2026 LX 186555 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2026), the court dismissed a class action, holding that prerecorded healthcare calls may fall within the emergency-purposes exception even when sent to the wrong number.

A customer signs up for your rewards program, checks a box, and clicks submit. From a business perspective, that moment often feels like a completed contract. From a legal perspective, the recent case Preminger v. Red Robin Int’l, Inc. shows it may not be.

Many companies treat privacy policies as an afterthought, but that approach creates real risk. The FTC’s March 30, 2026 action against OkCupid and Match Group Americas underscores a simple point: your policy must match what you actually do with data.

A second federal court has now held that caller ID requirements apply to marketing text messages and can be enforced through private lawsuits. Novia v. Mobiz signals a growing trend courts may continue to follow. While the legal theory remains contested, claims based on missing sender identification in texts are starting to survive.

Join me, Stuart Discount, Megan Rose, and Mark Silver Thursday, March 19 at 2 pm ET as we talk through the pros, cons, and real-world impact of the Reassigned Number Database and what it means for TCPA class actions.

On March 5, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) announced a $375,703 administrative fine against Ford Motor Company over how it handled consumer opt-out requests under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).

After a recent string of court rulings treating texts as “calls” under the TCPA, it seemed like the argument that texts are not calls was effectively dead. Trying to argue otherwise started to feel a bit like bringing a rotary phone to a smartphone fight. But two recent federal district court decisions suggest the issue may not be quite as settled as many assumed.

In Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 5614 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2026), the Fifth Circuit held that the TCPA requires only “prior express consent” for prerecorded calls to cell phones, and that consent may be oral or written.