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.

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.

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.

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.

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.