Hi TCPAWorld!
Another lawsuit involving an alleged violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1) (the “Quiet Hours Provision”) just got filed in the U.S. Central District of California. As with many others, this one comes from Jibrael Hindi’s office, which has filed numerous of quiet hours cases (and the word numerous is an understatement). See the link below for another blog of a case involving Jibrael’s office filing a TCPA lawsuit alleging violations of the quiet hours provision.
As a refresher, the “quiet hours” provision under the TCPA prohibits initiating telephone solicitations before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time of the called party. The DNC provision provides that, when an individual whose phone number has been registered on the national DNC registry for more than thirty days receives more than one telephone solicitations in a twelve-month period, that individual has a private right of action. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). Section 227(c)(2), on the other hand, implements additional regulations, including the Quiet Hours Provision, which provides the same private right of action for telephone solicitations made either before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., in the recipient’s local time. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(2); C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1).
In this latest suit, Bianca Johnston v. Daily Harvest LLC, 5:26-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026), Bianca Johnston, alleges that between October 21, 2025 and February 1, 2026, she received more than two (2) text messages from Daily Harvest (the smoothie brand that was then acquired by the yogurt juggernaut, Chobani in May 2025) before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time in her location.
Sidenote: I chose February 1, 2026, since it is unclear when the last message was sent but as this complaint was filed on February 2, 2026, it made the most logical sense to include the February 1, 2026 date. Additionally, whoever drafted the complaint made a typo because it reads “On or about October 21, 2026” which is factually impossible.
A screenshot of the text messages are as follows:
What is interesting is that Plaintiff alleges that more than two marketing messages were sent to Plaintiff before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at Plaintiff’s location). ¶ 16. And there have been rulings to support the fact that a recipient’s area code determines the recipient’s time zone. See Jubb v. CHW Group Inc., No. 23CV23382 (EP) (MAH), 2025 WL 942961 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2025).
Alternative Paths: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Quiet Hours Provision Claim
However, from the screenshots provided in the complaint, only exactly two marketing messages were sent before 7 a.m. (one on October 21, 2025 and the other some time on or after December 19, 2025 though it is unclear exactly when). There are no other messages shown to be sent during the quiet hours as defined in the TCPA.
Similarly to the blog above that covered the previous case that Jibrael Hindi’s office filed, Bianca Johnston is not only seeking damages for herself but she is attempting to certify a nationwide class of people who also received marketing messages from Daily Harvest during the quiet hours. The class definition is:
All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12-month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party’s location).
As a refresher, TCPA carries statutory violations of $500 per text and up to $1,500 if they were knowing and willful violations. For the two text messages that Bianca received outside the quiet hours, she could recover up to $3,000. However, that number of course could go up exponentially if the class is certified. For example, if even 50 additional people each received one marketing message from Daily Harvest outside the quiet hours, that would increase the potential liability to $26,000 if simply using the base statutory amount.
It will be interesting to see where this case goes from here as the quiet hours provision within the greater TCPA framework is still an evolving area. As more cases get filed, more have the potential for important rulings and we will be sure to stay on top of all developments.
I will keep you posted TCPAWorld on any news coming from this case. Until next time.
Discover more from TCPAWorld
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.