IMPLAUSIBLE: ATDS Claims Against Debt Collector Tossed as Curated Messages Are Not Subject to TCPA’s Regulated Tech Provisions

A couple of recent TCPA rulings have suggested ATDS claims should get past the pleadings stage in circumstances that did not suggest random-fire dialers were in use.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook, most courts have concluded only dialers that randomly generate telephone numbers trigger the TCPA. While that is not actually what the Supreme Court held, who am I to argue with a good thing.

Still a handful of recent court decisions have suggested the use of a shortcode or other content suggest a message was blasted to a large number of consumers at once– even if for debt collection purposes– might indicate ATDS usage.

Well in Robertson v. TrueAccord 2026 WL 678769 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19 2026) we have a court restoring the traditional rule that it is “implausible” debt collection calls are made using an ATDS.

In Robertson the Plaintiff claims he received a bunch of unwanted SMS messages that violated both the FDCPA and the TCPA.

As to the TCPA claim the Plaintiff claimed the messages were sent using an ATDS. But there were no direct factual allegations supporting that claim. So the court dismissed the case.

Here is the court’s analysis:

Plaintiff has failed to plead facts to support the inference that Defendant used an ATDS to send the text messages. Plaintiff alleges
that True Accord sent her unsolicited text messages in May and June 2025. ECF 4 ¶¶ 18, 51-52. She alleges the messages were
sent to her personal cellular phone via SMS from a short code 6 and that Defendant used an ATDS without human intervention.
Id. ¶¶ 51, 54. Yet, merely alleging the use of an ATDS “is insufficient to sustain a TCPA claim.” Hunsinger, 2022 WL 562761,
at *3–4 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The facts alleged by Plaintiff only plausibly
support the inference Defendant did not use an ATDS. Defendant’s alleged use of short code is inconclusive. See Hunsinger,
2022 WL 562761, at *5. Crucially though, Plaintiff alleges the messages contained personalized information (specific debt
amounts), making it implausible that Defendant sent them to her using a device that randomly generates the phone numbers
to be contacted. See Gardner v. Navient, LLC, No. 3:24-CV-198-S-BN, 2024 WL 3363016, at *4 (N.D. Tex. June 7, 2024)
(“[F]rom the facts alleged – that [plaintiff] was contacted concerning a debt that she allegedly owed – the Court may more
reasonably infer a preexisting relationship between the parties and that no ATDS … was used.”), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 3:24-CV-198-S-BN, 2024 WL 3362475 (N.D. Tex. July 9, 2024); Suttles, 461 F. Supp. 3d at 487 (“Allegations
of directly targeting specific individuals weigh against an inference that an ATDS was used.”)

The bolded portion is key.

Messages that contain curated content designed specifically for an intended recipient really should not be the subject of TCPA litigation in most jurisdictions–there is simply no plausible basis to conclude they were sent at random.

Still this area of law is in constant flux– so be cautious.

If you want to have the most up-to-the-second information on what is, and is not, an ATDS be sure to attend the Czar’s incredible 2.5 hour TCPA presentation at Law Conference of Champions May 4-6, 2026 in Irvine, CA.

You will learn more about the TCPA in that session than you can anywhere else. Just a fact.

Chat soon.