Are texts really “calls” under the TCPA? What happens when state regulators take a different approach? And how are AI and new FCC requirements changing the landscape? Join Bubeck Law and Contact Center Compliance on September 22 for a practical discussion of the legal and business issues companies using calls, texts, lead generation, and outbound marketing should have on their radar.

A federal court in Missouri has dismissed a proposed class action alleging that marketing texts violated the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call provisions. In Rush v. SelectQuote Insurance Services, Inc., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182934 (W.D. Mo. July 30, 2026), the court held that a text message is not a “telephone call” covered by the private right of action in § 227(c)(5).

Businesses often assume that once a customer agrees to an arbitration provision, TCPA claims will be headed to arbitration rather than court. A recent decision from the Northern District of California shows that the analysis doesn’t end there.

If your company relies on lead generators, marketing vendors, or other third parties to place telemarketing calls, a new Seventh Circuit decision provides important guidance on when your business may, and may not, be responsible for their mistakes.

A real estate investor’s “we buy houses” text may look like a simple purchase inquiry. But a new Ninth Circuit ruling suggests that may not end the TCPA analysis. In Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer, LLC, the court revived a TCPA do-not-call claim, holding that courts may consider why a message was sent, not just what it said.

If your business has been sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in Texas, you've probably seen it before: a plaintiff adds a claim alleging the company failed to obtain a Texas telephone solicitation registration certificate.

A common sales pitch in the real estate industry goes something like this: ringless voicemail is safer because the consumer’s phone never rings. No interruption. No annoyance. No problems under the TCPA. That theory has now fueled years of TCPA litigation.

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.