Another really interesting one for you today.
We’ve been discussing the havoc caused by the Supreme Court’s ruling in McKesson that set courts free to disregard FCC TCPA rulings. Much chaos has already ensued.
Well in the latest departure from wll-tread norms a court just read the “emergency purposes” exemption broadly to cover most medical-related calls– even if they are sent to the wrong number.
In Aguirre v. Optum, 2025 WL 3190830 (C.D. Cal. Oct.24, 2025) a court granted the defense motion to dismiss.
At issue were a series of prerecorded calls sent by Optum stating the following:
Hello, this is Optum calling for James Duran. We were calling to share information about an approved authorization. Please call us back any time twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week toll free at 1-844-306-3237. Again, the number is 1-844-306-3237. TTY users should call 800-735-2922. Thank you and have a good day. Goodbye.
The calls were apparently placed to a wrong number and not to the member Optum was trying to reach.
Optum moved to dismiss arguing the calls were made for an emergency purpose. The argument is that whatever the “approved authorization” was it was an emergent healthcare message that falls within the exception. In other words it was “good news” for a patient that something the patient needed would be covered by the insurer.
Plaintiff countered that since there was nothing on the face of the message indicating the emergency-it could have been approval to buy toothpaste– and since it was sent to a wrong number the motion should be denied.
The Court agreed with Optum and took an expansive view of the emergency purposes exemption after McKesson:
These calls, which by their own terms addressed “approved authorization” and “important information about a request your doctor made” in a health insurance context, plainly present a “situation affecting the health … of [a] consumer[ ].” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(4). In the same way that information about prescriptions has been found to be covered by the emergency exception because prescriptions relate to recipients’ health, receiving information about authorization from a health insurance company emergently relates to an individual’s ability to receive medical care under the FCC’s promulgated regulation. 3 See Roberts v. Medco Health Sols., Inc., 2016 WL 3997071, at *3 (E.D. Mo. July 26, 2016) (“in many instances a patient’s ability to timely receive a prescribed medicine is critical in preventing a major health emergency”); Lindenbaum v. CVS Health Corp., No. 1:17 CV-1863, 2018 WL 501307, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2018) (“In most cases, information about where, when, and how to refill a prescription concerns the health and safety of consumers, who may be reliant on their medication.)
The court also that the fact Optum called a wrong number was not dispositive as it is intent that matters. The court determined that since Optum had not been told the call was made to the wrong number and plaintiff did not say “stop” Optum essentially had a good faith belief it was contacting a customer.
This is a really great win for Optum and one that somewhat expands the emergency purposes exemption. The argument regarding the intent of the caller is very important as well– it looks a lot like the “intended recipient” “called party” argument. This could end up being a very useful decision.
Nice job!
And if YOU want wins leveraging cutting edge arguments like these, be sure to retain the firm that is always in the TCPA know– Troutman Amin, LLP. New rate structure takes effect Jan. 1, 2026– so retain us now and save a ton!
THE FIRST $6K AN HOUR ATTORNEY?: Troutman Amin, LLP Rates Set to Rise January 1, 2026– Get In Now!
Chat soon.
Discover more from TCPAWorld
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.