Chick-fil-A Sued Over Marketing Texts at 7:15 a.m.

So what's alleged?

On August 13, 2026, Monica Lee filed a proposed class action against Chick-Fil-A, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:26-cv-09018. Here's what the complaint says:

• Her cell number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since at least July 1, 2003.
• She says she never gave Chick-fil-A permission to text her and never signed a written agreement.
• She says there was no established business relationship with her in the time windows the rules care about.
• On May 8, 2026, at 7:22 a.m. and June 16, 2026, at 7:15 a.m. Pacific, she allegedly got marketing texts while in Long Beach.
• The texts came from short code 73719, listed as Chick-fil-A, with a marketing page link and opt-out instructions.

You can read it here: Lee v. Chick-fil-A TCPA quiet hours complaint.

These are allegations. Chick-fil-A hasn't been found liable.

Here's the thing ... two rules, one text

The complaint has two Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) theories under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules:

1. Quiet hours. No telemarketing before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time. 7:15 is before 8. Pretty simple math.
2. Do Not Call Registry. No telemarketing to registered numbers without consent or an existing relationship.

Two texts. Two theories. One class action.

But wait ...

Remember, a bunch of courts have said texts aren't "calls" under the part of the TCPA this complaint uses. The Ninth Circuit hasn't settled that. And "local time" fights can get messy when people travel. So this one isn't a slam dunk either way.

What to do this week

• Send in the recipient's time zone, not yours. And build in a buffer. Nobody has ever been sued for texting at 10 a.m.
• Scrub marketing texts against the Registry unless you've got real consent.
• Keep consent records tied to the number. If someone says "I never signed up," you want proof.

It's not rocket science. It's just the boring stuff.