Consent Complications Sink TCPA Class in Texas

In Mitchell v. Dallas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212107 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2025), a Texas federal court refused to certify a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class against Toyota of Dallas, and it all came down to consent.

The plaintiff, Rhonn Mitchell, claimed the dealership kept texting him even after he opted out, and he tried to turn that into a class action on behalf of more than 1,500 customers.

His expert proposed identifying class members by comparing Toyota’s text logs to its internal “do-not-call” list. The idea was to flag anyone who got marketing texts more than 31 days after opting out. On paper, it looked simple. But the court did not buy it.

Judge David C. Godbey found that the expert’s approach ignored the messy realities of customer consent. Toyota presented evidence showing that many customers who had opted out later reengaged with the dealership by calling, visiting in person, or filling out lead forms on third-party sites like Kelley Blue Book or Cars.com.

Those interactions could count as new consent under the TCPA. The expert’s methodology could not account for that or distinguish between consumer and business phone numbers. As a result, the court said the class could not be reliably identified without a series of mini trials for each person.

That failure doomed the motion. Under Rule 23(b)(3), a class can only move forward if common issues “predominate” over individual ones. Here, questions about whether each person actually reconsented would overwhelm any shared issue. The court also said the lack of “cohesiveness” under Rule 23(b)(2) meant there was no way to resolve the case fairly as a group.

For businesses, the takeaway is clear: class actions often rise or fall on how well plaintiffs define the class. When consent is dynamic and changes with each interaction, no statistical model or data match can replace clear, individualized proof. Companies that document opt-ins, opt-outs, and reengagements across all platforms are in a stronger position to challenge certification early.

Consent does not happen once. It evolves, and courts are increasingly unwilling to assume everyone’s story is the same.