Novia v. Mobiz: Auction Texts, a Michigan Seller, and a Caller ID Claim That Sticks

The Setup

The plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident with a residential 617 number, got four texts in February and March 2025 from the vendor's number promoting the auction house's sales. According to the complaint, the auction house wrote the texts, gave the vendor targeting criteria and demographics, and kept it on as the auctions changed. He sued both companies under the Do Not Call rule and the telemarketing caller ID rule, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(e).

Order One: The Texting Vendor

Standing. The vendor argued no harm because the texts named the auction house. The court disagreed. The rule requires the seller's name and customer service number, and these texts had a website link but no phone number. The plaintiff said that made it harder to know who was texting and whom to ask to stop, and wasted his time. An "identifiable trifle" is enough.

Who "initiated" the texts? The court applied the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) test: who physically placed the call, and whether someone else was so involved that it should be treated as the sender. The complaint alleged the vendor actually sent the texts and plausibly decided which numbers to text, when, and how often. That pleaded direct liability against the vendor even though the seller wrote the script.

Caller ID private right of action. This is the big one and the courts are split. The Do Not Call section, Section 227(c), has a private right of action. The technical standards section, Section 227(d), does not. The court held the caller ID rule falls under 227(c), because that subsection tells the agency to evaluate "telephone network technologies" to protect privacy, and caller ID is exactly that kind of tool. Section 227(d) is about fax machines, autodialers, and prerecorded voice systems, while the caller ID rule covers all telemarketing. It acknowledged the contrary decisions by Maryland and Michigan federal courts, but found them unpersuasive.

Order Two: The Auction House

Personal jurisdiction. The Michigan seller said four texts were not enough to be sued in Massachusetts. But the court found a plausible agency relationship through a contract, script, targeting criteria and changing instructions over time. That allowed it to attribute the vendor's Massachusetts texts to the seller under both the "transacting business" and "tortious injury" parts of the state long arm statute, and due process was satisfied by repeated texts to a Massachusetts number. Its caller ID argument failed for the same reasons.

Why It Matters

Hiring a texting vendor does not build a jurisdictional wall around a seller, particularly one that writes the script and chooses the audience. Vendors who choose recipients and timing may be treated as the sender. And every marketing text should include the seller's name and a callable customer service number since in a number of courts that rule has teeth.

Read the District of Massachusetts order on the texting vendor's motion in Novia v. Mobiz and the order on the auction house's motion.