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.

Sometimes, it’s important to have a legal reminder—much like reminding your kids to say “please” or “thank you” for the thousandth time. So, here’s your reminder: if you are using artificial intelligence (AI) to make calls or send texts, they are subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Back in February, I wrote about a significant development in a TCPA class action our firm is defending: a federal judge granted our request for bifurcated discovery. In my view, nothing shifts the dynamics and leverage early in a putative TCPA class action more than a court granting bifurcation.

In recent months, a growing trend has emerged: plaintiffs filing TCPA class actions that claim companies violated federal calling time restrictions by reaching out before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time, even when the person may have given consent.

Let’s say your child wants to download Minecraft. He’s prompted to enter a parent’s phone number before proceeding, and he puts in yours. Moments later, your phone buzzes with a text asking for parental consent. While this seems like a responsible move under the COPPA, you pause. You never agreed to receive that text. Does this comply with the TCPA?

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling and held that Move, Inc. (better known as Realtor.com) can’t compel a consumer into arbitration over a lawsuit claiming violations of the TCPA.

This morning, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced it is delaying part of its consent revocation rule, specifically Section 64.1200(a)(10), until April 11, 2026.

Imagine this: your company calls a long-time customer, only to find out their phone number was reassigned. Now you’re facing a TCPA class action with potential damages in the millions. You had no idea the number changed hands, but it doesn’t matter.

Dismissing a TCPA lawsuit early is no small feat. The recent case of Jubb v. CHW Grp., Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59172 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2025), highlights how easily plaintiffs can plead both direct and vicarious liability, keeping businesses entangled in litigation.

In a case that could have nationwide implications, the Eastern District of Michigan has ruled that individuals can sue for caller ID violations under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In a move that surprises few, the FCC is looking to scale back its regulatory oversight. Last week, it issued a public notice requesting comments on rules that “have outlived their usefulness, for which there is no longer any (or only substantially diminished) need, or which otherwise give rise to harms….” It’s not hard to see where this is headed.