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.

Oklahoma is poised to join 19 states with comprehensive consumer privacy laws, further expanding the state-by-state compliance landscape for businesses that collect and use personal data. If enacted, the law would take effect January 1, 2027, adding another jurisdiction to an already complex regulatory map.

Many businesses assume their California privacy exposure is fully addressed through compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). But that assumption can leave important gaps. We are seeing a rise in inquiries and pre-litigation letters invoking California’s “Shine the Light” law. These requests may appear routine but mishandling them can create real statutory and litigation risk.

Disney is one of the most recognizable brands in the world, but even Mickey isn’t safe from the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). In a landmark enforcement action, the California Attorney General yesterday announced a $2.75 million settlement with The Walt Disney Company, the largest settlement to date under the CCPA.

If you’ve been watching the recent TCPA litigation over whether a text message counts as a “call,” two more courts just landed on the “yes” side. The decisions reinforce the safest compliance rule: treat texts like calls.

Even well-intentioned customer outreach can create significant risk under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), especially when prerecorded calls are involved. A recent $9.95 million TCPA class settlement highlights how quickly informational communications can turn into costly litigation.

When websites tell users they agree to terms by clicking a button, when does that click actually bind them? In Dahdah v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, No. 24-1910, 2026 LX 73742 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2026), the Sixth Circuit addressed that question in a setting familiar to many businesses: a consumer entering information on a lead-generation site and clicking buttons to move forward.