Newell v. JR Capital: A Caller ID Win, Then a Business Number Loss

Round one: July 16, 2025

Jourey Newell received five marketing texts promoting business equipment and vehicle financing. Each had a link to "jrwcap.com/equipment," but none named JR Capital. After the first two, he emailed the company asking to be put on its internal Do Not Call list. Three more texts came anyway.

He sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), including a claim that the texts broke the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) caller ID rule, which requires telemarketers to transmit caller ID information that includes the telemarketer's or seller's name. JR Capital moved to dismiss that count. The court said no on all three arguments:

There's a private right of action. Some courts have said the caller ID rule comes from Section 227(d), which has no private right of action. Judge McHugh disagreed. The FCC treated caller ID as a "network technology" under Section 227(c), and Section 227(c)(5) lets people sue.

The rule covers texts. The FCC's own definition of caller ID information includes a "text message sent using a text messaging service."

A link isn't a name. "jrwcap.com" isn't "JR Capital," and clicking a link to figure out who's texting you puts the risk of phishing on the consumer. The FCC also considered letting website addresses count and didn't adopt that.

Round two: August 17, 2026

Discovery then occurred regarding whether the number was residential. Oops.

Newell ran a home-based landscaping business starting in 2016 and used the number as its sole contact line. He got a second number in 2018 but kept using the first one for business, sometimes "many times in a week." His newer contracting company listed the original number on a state home improvement registration and a federal motor carrier registration while the texts were being sent. JR Capital obtained the number from a business database which listed his landscaping company.

The court held that all three claims, including the caller ID claim, require a residential number because they rest on Section 227(c). It then found two independent grounds for judgment:

Equitable estoppel. Newell held the number out publicly as a business line, and JR Capital, which finances businesses, reasonably relied on that.

Business number on the merits. Adopting the Ninth Circuit's factors from Chennette v. Porch.com, Inc., No. 20-35962 (9th Cir. Oct. 12, 2022), the court found no reasonable jury could call the number residential.

The court ignored part of Newell's declaration which contradicted his deposition testimony.

Takeaways

1. The caller ID rule can apply to marketing texts, so name the seller in the text.
2. Honor opt-out requests from any channel, including email.
3. Home business owners: the number listed on public registrations can be used against you.
4. Business-to-business marketers should keep records showing where they got the number.

General information only, not legal advice.

Read the August 17, 2026 summary judgment opinion and the July 16, 2025 motion to dismiss opinion.