One of the hottest new claims in TCPAWorld are suits challenging a marketer did not faithfully comply with the TCPA’s caller ID display rules.
The rules are found at 47 CFR § 64.1601(e)(1) require a telemarketing call must “include either the CPN or ANI and the name of the telemarketer, or the name and customer service number of the seller that the call is being made on behalf of.”
For many years courts determined (correctly) that no cause of action to enforce this provision existed. But the Sherriff– Mark Dobronski– changed that rule by destroying a #biglaw represented counterparty a couple years back. Since then the majority rule has flipped– most courts now hold that there IS a private right of action requiring caller ID display for every single telemarketing call.
But what does it mean to “include either the CPN or ANI and the name of the telemarketer, or the name and customer service number of the seller that the call is being made on behalf of.”
Well in Zelma v. Ram, 2026 WL 1398784 (D. N.J. May 19, 2026) a court in New Jersey gave us a pretty good answer.
In that suit the Plaintiff–who was proceeding without a lawyer- claimed Ram–a RE/MAX agent–called him without consent. Zelma sued under the TCPA’s DNC rules and also for failure to disclose under 64.1601(e).
Ram moved to dismiss and mostly loss– more on that in another blog– but he won something very important.
The Caller ID piece of the case got tossed upon the finding that Ram’s display “RE/MAX” was sufficient to meet the statute’s rules:
The Court finds that Defendants properly transmitted such caller identification information. As Plaintiff has alleged, Ram’s
calls displayed the company name (“RE/MAX”) alongside the number (201) 431-5529, which Plaintiff was able to call and reach
Ram, who confirmed his affiliation with RE/MAX.
This is a very simple ruling but it is an important one– and one that was missing from the annals of TCPA lore.
We now know what compliance with 64.1601(e) actually looks like. It looks like a phone number being displayed “alongside” a “company name.”
Ok, not rocket science. But still this a concrete answer to a commonly-asked question that didn’t have a case law answer until now.
If you want more concrete answers be sure to request a copy of the 2026 Troutman Amin, LLP TCPA Annual Review, presented by Contact Center Compliance. Its totally free and totally awesome! 🙂
Chat soon.
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
RICHARD M. ZELMA, Plaintiff,
v.
AARON L. RAM and RE/MAX REAL ESTATE LIMITED, INC., Defendants.
No. 25cv15701 (EP) (JSA)
|
Filed 05/19/2026