Buyer Beware: Ninth Circuit Revives TCPA Claims Over Home-Buying Texts

A real estate investor’s “we buy houses” message may look like a purchase inquiry. But under a new Ninth Circuit ruling, that may not end the TCPA analysis.

In Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer, LLC, No. 25-4066, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 16209 (9th Cir. June 4, 2026), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a TCPA do-not-call claim involving calls and texts to a homeowner about selling her property. The key issue was not just what the messages said. It was why they were allegedly sent.

Last year, we wrote about the district court’s ruling in Coffey, which held that messages offering to buy a consumer’s home were not “telephone solicitations” because they did not encourage the homeowner to buy anything. That ruling was helpful for real estate investors and other businesses that use outreach to purchase property, assets, or other opportunities.

The Ninth Circuit has now taken a broader view.

The plaintiff alleged she received multiple calls and texts asking whether she was interested in selling her home, including the message: “Have you given up on selling your property?” On its face, that sounds like a buyer asking to purchase property, not a seller pitching a service.

But the complaint alleged more. According to the plaintiff, Fast Easy Offer’s business model was not limited to buying homes. She alleged that many consumers who responded became leads for traditional real estate brokerage services offered through affiliated Keller Williams entities, and that nine out of ten responding consumers ultimately became brokerage clients.

Those allegations were enough to revive the case.

The Ninth Circuit focused on the TCPA’s definition of “telephone solicitation,” which covers calls or messages initiated for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services. The court held that the relevant inquiry is not limited to the words in the text or call script. Courts may also consider the sender’s alleged purpose in initiating the communication.

That distinction matters. A message does not need to expressly say “hire us,” “buy our service,” or “pay a fee” to survive a motion to dismiss. If the plaintiff plausibly alleges that one purpose of the outreach was to funnel consumers toward paid services, the claim may proceed.

The decision does not mean every home-buying text is automatically a TCPA solicitation. The Ninth Circuit did not decide the merits. It held only that Coffey’s allegations were enough at the pleading stage. The case now returns to the district court.

For real estate companies, investors, lead generators, and other businesses, the practical lesson is clear: do not evaluate TCPA risk based only on the message itself. Evaluate the full campaign.

If the real business objective is to generate customers for paid services, plaintiffs may argue that even a buyer-style message is really a solicitation.

Buyer beware: after Coffey, intent may matter as much as content.