TCPA.com

The law behind
the conversation.

Search/ The TCPA Brief

Topic 05

Litigation

Private lawsuits account for most Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) enforcement. The statute sets damages at $500 per violation, or up to $1,500 if willful or knowing, so class actions over large calling or texting campaigns can carry heavy exposure. Consumers may sue in federal or state court, as the Supreme Court held in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services (2012).

Rulings shaping cases now

  1. Courts read the statute themselves. In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. (2025), the Supreme Court held that district courts are not bound by interpretations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in enforcement cases.
  2. Texts and do-not-call suits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in July 2026 that texts are not "telephone calls" under § 227(c)(5).
  3. Consent for prerecorded calls. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in February 2026 that prior express consent is enough for any prerecorded call.
  4. Standing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in a case heard en banc, held in 2023 that even a single unwanted text is a concrete injury.
  5. Autodialers. Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021) limits the autodialer definition to equipment with random or sequential number generation.

Defendants most often assert consent, the definition of an autodialer, established business relationship, and the reasonable-practices defense to do-not-call lawsuits. Sellers also contest vicarious liability for vendor calls.

The bottom line

The law of the circuit matters more than it used to. The articles in this section cover new decisions, settlements, and trends.

The maintained guide

Litigation Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) has been one of the most litigated consumer laws in the United States.

Guides 1

Analysis and news 57

Case analysis · Calls & text messages

Moskowitz v. American Savings Bank: Texting a Short Code Consents to the Reply, and Rule 41(d) Costs Exclude Attorney's Fees

In Moskowitz v. American Savings Bank, F.S.B., 37 F.4th 538 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a bank sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) over automated replies to text messages, and then reversed an award of attorney's fees that the district court had treated as "costs" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d).

By Harrison Gevirtz

Analysis · Litigation & decisions

Eight Sentenced in New York Business Opportunity Telemarketing Scheme That Fought Victims' Chargebacks With False Records

On April 5, 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, part of the Department of Justice (DOJ), announced sentences for eight defendants in a telemarketing scheme that targeted elderly victims with phony business "investments." Sentences ranged from four months to 87 months in prison.

By Harrison Gevirtz

Case law 8

Supreme Court · 2025

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. (2025)

In a private lawsuit or other enforcement proceeding under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal district court is not bound by the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) interpretation of the statute.

606 U.S. 146 (2025)2 min read

Eleventh Circuit (en banc) · 2023

Drazen v. Pinto (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc)

The full Eleventh Circuit ruled that a person who receives an unwanted, illegal telemarketing text message has suffered a concrete injury and so has standing to sue under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

74 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc)2 min read

Supreme Court · 2021

Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021)

The Supreme Court significantly narrowed the definition of what constitutes an "automatic telephone dialing system," or autodialer, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

592 U.S. 395 (2021)2 min read

Supreme Court · 2020

Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)

The Supreme Court invalidated a 2015 exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that allowed robocalls to cell phones made to collect debts owed to or guaranteed by the federal government.

591 U.S. 610 (2020)2 min read

D.C. Circuit · 2018

ACA International v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 2018)

The D.C. Circuit reviewed a 2015 order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) interpreting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018)2 min read

Supreme Court · 2016

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (2016)

A defendant cannot moot a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) suit, including a proposed class action, just by offering a named plaintiff full relief.

577 U.S. 153 (2016)2 min read

Primary sources

  1. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (Cornell Legal Information Institute)
  2. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012)
  3. McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025)
  4. Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, LLC, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026)
  5. Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc., No. 24-20379 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2026)
  6. Drazen v. Pinto, 74 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc)
  7. Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021)