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.

On January 13, 2026, the Ninth Circuit issued Howard v. Republican National Committee, reaffirming that texts are “calls” under the TCPA despite recent uncertainty. The court also held that a text containing a prerecorded video is not necessarily a “prerecorded” call signaling a narrower view of TCPA liability.

If you’re a real estate agent or brokerage using calls or texts to generate sales, the TCPA should be on your radar. TCPA lawsuits against real estate professionals have surged in recent years. These cases frequently name both brokerages and individual agents, are costly to defend, and often stem from routine marketing calls or texts.

For the first time in the Second Circuit, a federal court has squarely decided whether a text counts as a “telephone call” under the TCPA for purposes of the National Do Not Call Registry. In Wilson v. Better Mortgage Corp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251694 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2025), the Southern District of New York held that it does.

Is a text the same thing as a phone call? Most people would say, “Of course not.” But under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), that question has now split courts around the country and left businesses, consumers, and lawyers waiting for clarity.

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.

In Schmitendorf v. Juicy’s Vapor Lounge, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208110 (D. Kan. Oct. 21, 2025), the court reminded everyone involved in TCPA class actions that sometimes a single word—“residential”—can determine the fate of the entire case.

Two courts. One message. Post-McLaughlin, some judges are making it clear: text messages are not “telephone calls” under the TCPA. In Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-477-AW-MAF, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167366 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025), the plaintiff claimed CVS Pharmacy sent him two unsolicited texts while his number was on the National Do Not Call Registry. But he didn’t allege a single call.

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.

You walk into a coffee shop, give your phone number to get a free drink, and shortly after, your phone buzzes with a welcome text and a hyperlink to some terms. Weeks later, you file a lawsuit under the TCPA, only to be told your claims must go to arbitration.

With primaries heating up and the fall general election just around the corner, your phone is likely lighting up with political texts—requests for donations, reminders to vote, or messages promoting a particular candidate. While some people may find these messages informative, many consider them annoying. But are they actually illegal?

A federal court has ruled that the National Do Not Call Registry does not apply to texts. In Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01074-JEH-RLH, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138371 (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2025), the court held that the “do-not-call” provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) applies only to phone calls and not texts.

If you want to avoid a TCPA class action, start with two simple rules. First, hire a lawyer who focuses on TCPA and telemarketing compliance from the start. Second, don’t use a prerecorded voice. That choice puts the burden on you to prove prior express written consent for marketing calls, a standard many companies can’t meet cleanly. If you’re using prerecorded messages without airtight documentation, you’re making yourself a target.

On June 20, 2025, the Court ruled in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. that district courts are not bound by the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) interpretation of the TCPA. Instead, judges must interpret the TCPA for themselves, using ordinary legal analysis, while giving “appropriate respect” to the agency’s view.

If you've ever replied “STOP” to a marketing text, you probably expected the messages to end immediately. But what happens if a few more slip through? Is that a class action waiting to happen?

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court quietly walked away from one of the most anticipated class action cases of the year. It declined to answer a deceptively simple, but incredibly important question: Can a class action for damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 include people who weren’t actually injured?

The housing market is buzzing, and agents are racing to get listings any way they can. But even with off-market deals and cash offers flying around, real estate pros need to be careful. A recent ruling out of Arizona shows that not every outreach effort runs afoul of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Companies are often sued not because they made the calls, but because someone else did. And when that “someone” is a third-party lead generator, plaintiffs need more than speculation to tie the defendant to the phone call. That was the key issue in Lightfoot v. SelectQuote, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04673, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103026 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2025), where SelectQuote secured a win at the motion to dismiss stage by showing the call in question didn’t mention them at all.

TCPA class actions are notoriously expensive to defend—even when the claims are weak. With statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per call or text and the potential for nationwide class exposure, litigation costs escalate quickly. Simply reaching or opposing class certification can cost tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. It’s no surprise that many businesses consider TCPA insurance as a safety net. But is it worth it? In my experience, not always—and here’s why.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 68 allows a defendant to make a formal settlement offer to the plaintiff, including accrued costs. If the plaintiff accepts within 14 days, judgment is entered. If not, the offer is withdrawn. But if the plaintiff ultimately recovers less than what was offered, they may have to cover the defendant’s post-offer costs.