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.

California is once again leading the charge in shaping the future of privacy regulation. On May 1, 2025, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) released a new round of proposed rules under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), aimed at modernizing how companies handle consumer data, automated decisionmaking, and cybersecurity oversight.

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?

If you're a parent, you've probably heard “Can I download this game?” more times than you can count. It may seem harmless, but behind that button lies a world of data collection—especially when the user is a child. To address this, the FTC rolled out major updates to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) on April 22, 2025, aiming to give parents greater control over how personal information is collected from children under 13 online.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a lawsuit against Uber, claiming the company misled customers about its Uber One subscription service. According to the FTC, Uber charged people without proper consent, exaggerated promised savings, and made it ridiculously hard to cancel despite advertising the service as “cancel anytime.”

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has officially bowed out of the fight to revive the TCPA’s one-to-one consent rule. In a filing on April 4, 2025, the Commission said it will not challenge the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in IMC v. FCC, which struck down the rule, and it will oppose any other efforts to bring it back.

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.

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is keeping a lot of lawyers busy these days, and not just in California. We’ve seen clients receive demand letters from California plaintiffs' firms claiming that the use of third-party cookies, pixels, and other tracking technology on their websites violates CIPA by functioning as a “trap and trace” device.

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.

If you’ve ever worked in sales, marketing, or compliance, you’ve probably heard: “You can call someone on the federal “do-not-call” list if you have an established business relationship (EBR), i.e., a purchase within the past 18 months or an inquiry within the past 3 months.” But state laws often have their own, much stricter time frames.

California isn’t playing around when it comes to data privacy. With recent crackdowns on Background Alert, Inc. and Honda, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) is making it clear: violating the state’s privacy laws can come with serious consequences.

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.

This summer, Tennessee and Minnesota are rolling out new consumer data privacy laws—the Tennessee Information Protection Act (TIPA) on July 1 and the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (MCDPA) on July 31.

Under the TCPA, businesses must honor internal “do-not-call” requests within a reasonable time, but no later than 30 days. But some plaintiffs now argue that companies should act even faster.

On May 14, 2025, the FTC “Click-to-Cancel” rule will finally take effect, and let’s be honest—this is the regulation subscription-based businesses secretly feared. The rule requires businesses to comply with a new mandate: if signing up was easy, canceling must be just as simple. No more requiring customers to send a carrier pigeon to end their subscriptions.

If you work in marketing, customer service, or any field involving consumer communications, get ready—significant changes are coming to the TCPA.

Starting April 11, 2025, new FCC rules will introduce stricter guidelines for revoking consent, and you don’t want to be caught off guard.

I’ll keep this brief: If you're a defendant in a TCPA class action and the judge requires a joint proposed scheduling order, your counsel should always request bifurcated (or phased) discovery.