“Prepare for the onslaught of 64.1601 claims”: New Ruling Confirms Private Right of Action On Caller ID AND Extends Rule to SMS Messages

3 Comments

Received an email from Andrew Perrong this morning entitled: “Prepare for the onslaught of 64.1601 claims.”

Attached was this case: Caller ID Claim

He wasn’t kidding.

This is a complete disaster.

In Newell v. JR Capital, 2:25-cv-01419-GAM (E.D. Pa. July 16 , 2025) the court expanded Dobronski’s big recent win against Selectquote holding a marketer must identify itself on a caller ID if the service is available.

The Court went on to hold the requirement applies o SMS messages.

To get there the court determined 47 CFR § 64.1601(e) was promulgated under 227(c) authority– so a private right of action exists. Here is the conclusion reached by the court:

In sum, the administrative history unequivocally demonstrates that caller ID is a network technology, assessed by the FCC as one available method to protect residential telephone subscribers’ privacy rights under § 227(c). See Dobronski v. Selectquote Ins. Servs., No. 23-12597, 2025 WL 900439, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2025) (“The agency record thus suggests that caller ID requirements are a telephone network technology or other alternative that the FCC required in an attempt to help consumers enforce their privacy rights against telemarketers. That places § 64.1601(e) in the heartland of § 227(c).”).

A dude without a lawyer beat a #biglaw firm and now the rest of us have to deal with the consequences.

And, no surprise, the law firm Perrong just whipped in Newell? Also a #biglaw firm.

Sigh.

Hire big law. Expect a big loss.

It gets worse though. Much much worse.

The Court also determined the caller ID requirement applies to text messages:

Finally, the meaning of technical terms used within subsection (e) also show that (e) applies to text messages. Under § 64.1601(e), “[a]ny person or entity that engages in telemarketing . . . must transmit caller identification information.” Caller identification information is defined as “information provided by a caller identification service regarding the telephone number of, or other information regarding the origination of, a call made using a voice service or a text message sent using a text messaging service.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1600(c) (emphasis added).17 Therefore, § 64.1601(e) specifically covers text messages.

Hmmm.

Notably the texts at issue DID provide a correct phone number and several even included a link to the sender’s website. But the texts did not submit caller ID information. So the court allowed the claim to proceed.

I am being a bit thin on analysis here intentionally. Call me and we can discuss.

This is a HUGE deal though.

And, per usual, we were WAY ahead of other law firms on this. We told you this was coming back in April:

CRITICAL COMPLIANCE ALERT: TCPA Caller ID Rules Pose Massive Risk to Marketers

Key take aways:

  1. Never hire #biglaw to defend you in a TCPA class action (Except Squire and Skadden);
  2. These caller ID cases are now very VERY real. Take it seriously and call us;
  3. Yes, you need to submit Caller ID information with text messages sent for marketing purposes. Again, call us.

More soon.

Discover more from TCPAWorld

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories:

Published by Eric "Czar" Troutman

The Czar of TCPAWorld Eric Troutman is one of the country’s prominent class action defense lawyers and is nationally recognized in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation and compliance. He has served as lead defense counsel in more than 70 national TCPA class actions and has litigated nearly a thousand individual TCPA cases in his role as national strategic litigation counsel for major banks and finance companies. He also helps industry participants build TCPA-compliant processes, policies, and systems. Eric has built a national litigation practice based upon deep experience, rigorous analysis and extraordinary responsiveness. Eric and his team feel equally at home litigating multibillion dollar telecommunications class actions in federal court as they do developing and executing national litigation strategies for institutions facing an onslaught of individual TCPA matters. They thrive in each of these roles – delivering consistently excellent results – while never losing sight of the client experience. While many firms now tout TCPA expertise, Eric has been there from the beginning. He built one of the country’s first TCPA-only defense teams and began serving as national TCPA counsel for his clients nearly a decade ago. This perspective allows him to swiftly develop the right litigation strategies for dealing with recurring problems, without wasting time on tactics that are bound to fail. Eric’s rich historical perspective and encyclopedic knowledge of the TCPA landscape also make him an invaluable resource to institutional compliance teams struggling to comply with the shifting regulatory landscape. No task is too small – or too big. Indeed, Eric and his team have helped build TCPA-compliant systems and processes for some of the largest and most complex corporate entities in the country. He commonly works with in-house compliance counsel to build and implement enterprise and business-line specific TCPA solutions, performs TCPA audits and drafts and reviews proposed TCPA policies and procedures. He and his team also have the technical expertise necessary to assist call centers seeking to develop TCPA-resistant call path architecture or to modify existing telephony and software integration to better insulate from potential TCPA exposure. Eric has built a reputation for thought leadership. An avid blogger and speaker, he has been at the forefront of the industry’s effort to push for clarity and a return to sanity for the TCPA for years. He was selected to advocate for the financial services industry on important TCPA issues before the Federal Communications Commission and co-authored the nation’s only comprehensive practice guide on TCPA defense. In his spare time, Eric leads defense teams representing banks and other financial services companies in consumer finance litigation matters. He has experience representing clients in UCC, TILA, RESPA FCRA, CCRA, CLRA, FDCPA, RFDCPA and FCCPA claims, as well as in fraud and bank operations issues.

3 Comments

  1. Fairly certain the SMS protocol does not permit sending a name along with the originating address. This is available on RCS which as you know is new and not fully adopted yet. So essentially this is suggesting SMS is not a viable method for business to use which doesn’t seem right. Definitely interesting but in your earlier paragraph you said “if the service is available.“ which it is not when using the SMS protocol.

    Reply

    1. I also think expert witness testimony will ultimately reveal there’s no violation for not transmitting the name as part of the Caller ID info on a text. The regulation states that caller identification information must include the telemarketer’s/seller’s name only “when available by the telemarketer’s carrier.” At least AFAIK there’s no way to include a name in SMS Caller ID info, but I’m not a techie. If so, the fact that a name is not available to be included in caller ID info on an SMS should have been a complete defense.

      Reply

  2. Simple, it’s always available, you simply put it in as the first part of the vague messaging.

    Reply

Leave a Reply