For any foreign (i.e. non-U.S.) companies out there that think you can blast American consumers with SMS messages or phone calls and escape liability, you better listen up.
In King v. Bon Charge 2025 WL 3764039 (D. De. Dec. 30, 2025) a federal court just held it could properly exercise jurisdiction over an Australian company–happy new year BTW down under!–because it had directed conduct (SMS messages) into the United States.
The analysis here is lengthy and highly-technical but it comes down to simple notions of fairness– if you can reach American consumers in the U.S. then they can reach you in courts in the U.S.
I am often asked by incredulous companies based overseas whether they could really be sued in the U.S. and now I can confidently say “yep” (there were some earlier cases that cast doubt on this idea but King really analyzes things pretty thoroughly and I am convinced.) So please dont think you’re unreachable under the TCPA just because you’re in a different country (or continent!)
Bottom line– anyone trying to reach U.S. consumers for marketing purposes better be VERY aware of the TCPA. With penalties of $500-$1,500.00 per call/text and with a highly-motivated and sophisticated plaintiff’s bar ready to sue over anything (including in class actions) foreign companies need to understand what they are walking into here in the U.S.
And yes our consumers are relatively wealthy and eager to spend money for some reason–yay– but we also remain testy and impatient and don’t like being bothered, really about anything… ever.
So good luck!
Also not sure I should bother mentioning it but this is your LAST DAY to retain Troutman Amin, LLP for the lower 2025 rates instead of the new 2026 rates. But since neither Puja nor I are in the office not sure you can engage us even if you wanted to. hahaha
Early bird gets all the worms folks.
And happy new year everyone! Love you all.
Discover more from TCPAWorld
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When I saw the headline, I knew it was going to be Yeremey Krivoshey – he is a master litigator who asserts his prowess akin to how a master chess player navigates the board with eviscerating precision. Only he could have pulled that off.
Yeremy had successfully litigated against Rash Curtis and Pro Custom Solar d/b/a Momentum while he was with Bursor & Fisher, and now has his own firm. I’m not surprised. He wears big shoes, and he knows how to fit them comfortably.
Very interesting case to read on a rainy day like today, thanks Eric. Surprised to see the amici brief by a prof at Harvard Law School, by invitation from the court, no less. So, it appears the court went to great lengths to make a well-informed decision here.
What will be even more interesting to see is if there’s an ultimate judgment that can’t be collected in the US, (which is likely coz the defendant appears to have no physical assets in the U.S. and would be rather dumb to leave money in a U.S. bank account,) then will an Australian court find that the U.S. court had jurisdiction – I’ll wager that it won’t.