1) New TCPA Case Law: A Court Says Texts May Not Always Be “Calls”

A new TCPA decision out of Florida is getting attention because it revives an argument many thought was mostly dead: whether a text message is always treated as a “telephone call” under certain TCPA provisions. In Lopresti v. Nouveau Essentials Marketing LLC, the court reasoned that “telephone call” and “text message” are distinct forms of communication in ordinary usage, and the ruling recommended dismissal where the claim was based only on unsolicited texts.

Why does this matter? Because many TCPA cases have long treated marketing texts like calls. If more courts follow this reasoning, plaintiffs may face a tougher road on some text-only claims, depending on which part of the TCPA they sue under. That does not mean spam texts are suddenly lawful everywhere. It means the legal theory and the specific statutory subsection matter even more.

For consumers, the practical lesson is simple: keep screenshots, opt-out replies, and the dates of every message. For businesses, this is a reminder that texting compliance is still a minefield, even if some courts are revisiting the statutory wording.

2) New TCPA Case Law: Opt-Out Requests Still Matter

A recent Florida case, Taylor v. Cider (US) Holding Ltd., highlights a point that should be obvious but still ends up in court: if a consumer opts out, companies need to stop. The court reasoned that continued text messages after an opt-out request can support an inference that the sender’s internal do-not-call procedures are deficient.

That matters because TCPA cases are not just about whether a message was sent. They are also about whether the company had compliant procedures in place and followed them. If a consumer says “stop” and the texts keep coming, that can become evidence of a bigger compliance failure.

For consumers, save the opt-out text and every message that came after it. For businesses, this is a warning that sloppy unsubscribe systems can create liability fast.

3) New TCPA Case Law: Courts Are Still Enforcing Do-Not-Call Rules

In Walker-Henry v. Honest REI LLC, a Wisconsin federal court addressed allegations that the defendants called a number on the National Do Not Call Registry and failed to provide identifying information, including the caller’s name and contact information. The court granted default judgment in part and denied it in part.

This is a useful reminder that TCPA compliance is not only about consent. Telemarketers also face rules about disclosures and do-not-call protections. Consumers often focus on the annoyance of the call itself, but the law also cares about whether the caller properly identified who they were and how they could be reached.

The takeaway is practical: if you get a sales call, note whether the caller identified the business and whether your number is on the DNC Registry. Small details can matter in a TCPA claim.

4) New TCPA Case Law: Bare Allegations About Autodialers May Not Be Enough

In Robertson v. TrueAccord Corp., the Southern District of Texas granted dismissal of the TCPA claim while FDCPA claims remained pending. Public reporting on the decision describes the court as rejecting a TCPA theory that lacked enough factual support for the alleged use of an automatic telephone dialing system.

That fits a broader trend: courts are increasingly asking plaintiffs to do more than just label communications “automated.” They want factual allegations that make the TCPA theory plausible. In other words, consumers may still have strong claims, but conclusory pleadings can be vulnerable.

For consumers, documentation matters more than ever. Save voicemails, logs, screenshots, and any repeated patterns. For lawyers and businesses, this case is another sign that TCPA pleading battles remain intense after Duguid.

5) New TCPA Case Law: Consent Can Be a Threshold Issue

In Banks v. Bio Tr. Nutrition, LLC, a Colorado federal court treated consent as a discrete, potentially dispositive issue and allowed plaintiff-specific discovery first, rather than immediately opening the door to expensive nationwide class discovery. The court reasoned that prior express consent is a complete defense to TCPA claims and that resolving it early could promote judicial economy.

This is important because many TCPA cases turn less on the technology used and more on whether the consumer consented in the first place. Did the person provide a number on a form? Check a box? Agree online? Was consent later revoked? Those questions often decide the case.

For consumers, be careful where you enter your phone number and keep copies of signup pages if possible. For businesses, this is another reminder that consent records are often the difference between a strong defense and a very expensive case.

6) New TCPA Case Law: Where the Injury Happens Can Matter

In Novia v. Mobiz, Inc., a Massachusetts federal court indicated that a TCPA injury occurs in the state where the plaintiff received the text or call. That matters for issues like venue, jurisdiction, and which court may properly hear the case.

That may sound procedural, but it has real-world significance. In national texting campaigns, companies often assume disputes can be managed centrally. Decisions like this reinforce that the location of the consumer receiving the communication may be legally important.

For consumers, this can matter if you are deciding where a claim belongs. For businesses sending messages nationwide, it is another warning that a broad campaign can create risk in many different places at once.

7) New TCPA Case Law: Class Actions Are Still Very Much Alive

Even with pleading fights and consent disputes, recent cases show TCPA class actions are far from dead. In James v. Smarter Contact, Inc., a Florida federal court found bifurcation unnecessary because of overlapping individual and class discovery and concerns about inefficiency and prejudice. In Sessa v. Ableto, Inc., another Florida federal court preliminarily approved a TCPA class settlement that would provide set payments to class members who submit valid claims.

The message is straightforward: courts are still willing to manage and resolve TCPA cases on a class-wide basis when the facts support it. That keeps settlement pressure high for companies engaged in mass calling or texting campaigns.

For consumers, this means one unwanted text or call may be part of a much larger pattern. For businesses, it means compliance failures can scale into major exposure quickly.