Zagury v. Puragain Water: A "Stop" Text May Revoke Consent to Calls, Too

Background

The plaintiff alleged that her residential number had been on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2006. A water treatment company sent her marketing texts in late November and early December 2025. On December 1, 2025, she replied "Stop" and "Remove," and received an automated confirmation that she had opted out. According to the amended complaint, the company then called her more than 20 times between December 1, 2025 and January 9, 2026, and sent one more text on December 5.

She asserted Do Not Call Registry and internal do not call claims under the TCPA, a claim under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA), and a separate count for knowing and willful violations.

Shotgun Pleading Rejected

The defendant argued the complaint was a shotgun pleading because it incorporated all factual allegations into every count and commingled calls and texts. The court disagreed. Incorporating the factual background does not make a pleading defective under Eleventh Circuit law, and the commingling simply reflected the plaintiff's legal theory that a text revocation reached calls.

Cross-Channel Revocation

The court identified three grounds supporting that theory. First, in its 2024 order, the FCC "confirm[ed]" that revocation extends to both robocalls and robotexts regardless of the medium used to revoke. Although the effective date of the related rule, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), has been delayed, the court read "confirm" as signaling that this was not a new position.

Second, the court relied on the confirmation text rule, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(12), which was not delayed. Under it, a sender may send a one-time confirmation, but absent an affirmative response must cease all further robocalls and robotexts. The plaintiff never responded affirmatively.

Third, under the FCC's longstanding position that consent may be revoked by any reasonable means, whether "Stop" reasonably communicated a desire to end all contact is a fact question.

Consent and Grace Periods

The defendant pointed to a screenshot suggesting the plaintiff had submitted an online inquiry. The court held that whether a prior express invitation or an established business relationship existed could not be resolved on the pleadings, and that any consent was plausibly revoked. The December 5 text fell within the 10 business day period for honoring do not call requests, but the calls extended well beyond it. The court also noted that the FTSA's 15-day grace period applies to text message solicitations, not to the post-revocation calls at issue.

Treble Damages Count Dismissed

The court dismissed the separate knowing and willful count. Treble damages are an enhancement of the remedy for a TCPA violation, not an independent cause of action, and the other counts already sought them.

Practical Implications

Businesses should treat a "Stop" reply as an opt-out from all channels, including calls by sales staff, unless the consumer affirmatively says otherwise after a compliant confirmation message. Systems that suppress texts but leave numbers in a calling queue create exposure. Plaintiffs should plead enhanced damages within the substantive counts.

Read the Southern District of Florida's order in Zagury v. Puragain Water.