Litigation Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Who can sue, and where

1. Consumers. Private plaintiffs can sue under § 227(b)(3) for robocall and autodialer violations and under § 227(c)(5) for do-not-call violations. In Mims v. Arrow Financial Services (2012), the Supreme Court held that federal and state courts both have jurisdiction over private TCPA suits.
2. State attorneys general. Under § 227(g), a state may sue on behalf of its residents. Those suits go to federal court.
3. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC can impose forfeitures, including under the Truth in Caller ID provision, § 227(e).

Damages

• § 227(b)(3): actual monetary loss or $500 for each violation, whichever is greater. If the defendant acted willfully or knowingly, the court may increase the award to as much as three times that amount.
• § 227(c)(5): the plaintiff must have received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the rules. The plaintiff may recover actual loss or up to $500 for each violation, trebled for willful or knowing violations. The defendant has an affirmative defense if it can prove it had established and implemented reasonable practices and procedures to prevent violations.
• Injunctions. Both provisions allow suits to enjoin violations.

Timing. The TCPA does not set its own limitations period for private suits. Courts generally apply the federal catch-all period in 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a): four years after the claim accrues.

Standing: is one text enough?

Federal courts require a concrete injury. In Drazen v. Pinto (11th Cir. July 24, 2023) (en banc), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that receiving a single unwanted text message is a concrete injury. The court compared the injury to the traditional tort of intrusion upon seclusion. That ruling departed from the court's 2019 panel decision in Salcedo v. Hanna, which had held that a single text was not enough.

Are texts "calls"?

This question now depends on the provision.

• § 227(b): courts, including the First, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, treat texts as calls. In Howard v. Republican National Committee (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026), the Ninth Circuit did so while holding that a text with an embedded video was not a call made "using" a prerecorded voice.
• § 227(c)(5): in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), the Seventh Circuit held texts are not "telephone calls," affirming the district court. To the best of the author's knowledge, no other circuit has ruled on this issue as of October 14, 2026.

How much weight do FCC rulings get?

In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. (June 20, 2025), the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in enforcement proceedings to the FCC's legal interpretations. Courts must interpret the statute themselves, "affording appropriate respect" to the agency.

For better or worse, FCC orders continue to be influential, but defendants and plaintiffs can now argue what the statute actually says and its implications. Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of Texas (5th Cir. 2026), on consent for prerecorded calls, and Steidinger, on texts, both relied on McLaughlin.

Common defenses

1. Consent. The defendant shows the plaintiff gave the required consent and did not revoke it. Good records win these fights.
2. No autodialer. After Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021), a system that dials from a stored list, without a random or sequential number generator, is not an autodialer.
3. No prerecorded voice. Live agent calls are outside § 227(b)'s robocall restrictions.
4. Established business relationship or written permission for do-not-call claims.
5. Reasonable practices and procedures Reasonable practices/procedures under § 227(c)(5) and the FCC's do-not-call safe harbor.
6. Reassigned numbers. The FCC's safe harbor in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(m) protects callers who checked the Reassigned Numbers Database and got an erroneous result.

A limit on one tactic. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (2016), the Supreme Court held that an unaccepted settlement offer does not moot a plaintiff's action. Thus, defendants cannot end a class action by offering the named plaintiff full relief.

Vicarious liability

Sellers sometimes argue that a vendor, not the seller, made the calls. 2013 Dish Network declaratory ruling (FCC 13-54) said that a seller can be vicariously liable under the principles of federal common-law agency, including actual, apparent and ratification authority, and these principles are still in use today. Courts apply them on their own, but this declaratory ruling continues to be a touchstone.

Class actions

Statutory damages make class treatment tempting. Courts examine whether consent, revocation, and reassigned-number issues can be decided class-wide. Settlements also face scrutiny. In a May 13, 2024 opinion in the Drazen case, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the judgment approving a class settlement, along with the attorney's fee award, and sent the case back to the district court.

The bottom line

TCPA cases turn on records. Plaintiffs need logs and screenshots. Defendants need consent proof, scrub records, opt-out logs, and vendor contracts. The law has shifted markedly since 2025, so check the law in your circuit.