Court Rules Tech Doesn’t Matter, How You Use Your Phone Does Under TCPA

If you’re like most people, your cell phone is glued to your side 24/7. But does the TCPA’s protection for “residential telephone subscribers” apply to cell phones? Before the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025), the answer was clear. Now, courts are being forced to take another look.

In Radvansky v. Bubolo Med., LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158564 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 15, 2025), the plaintiff said he had registered his cell phone number on the Do Not Call Registry but still received marketing texts from Bubolo Medical. Bubolo tried to shut down the case early, arguing that the TCPA only protects residential landlines and that the plaintiff hadn’t shown his cell number qualified as “residential.”

The judge disagreed. Citing McLaughlin, the court interpreted the statute directly rather than relying on FCC orders. The ruling made one thing clear: what matters is not the technology but how the number is used. Because the plaintiff said he used his cell phone as his personal home line and not for business, the court held that he qualified as a residential telephone subscriber and denied Bubolo’s motion to dismiss.

For years, the FCC’s 2003 Order had closed this debate by declaring that cell phones count as residential subscribers, and courts went along. But after McLaughlin, courts must make their own call. Just as with the residential-subscriber question in Radvansky, expect other areas of TCPA law once thought settled to be litigated all over again. And until appellate courts weigh in, outcomes will vary widely from one jurisdiction to another.