Hi TCPAWorld!
I am Olga Koroleva, one of the newest associate attorneys at Troutman Amin, LLP! And this is my first TCPAWorld post!
In Zelma v. Wonder Group Inc., No. 25cv3232 (D.N.J. May 20, 2026), pro se Plaintiff Richard Zelma received exactly two text messages from Wonder Group (a food services company also known as Remarkable Foods, Inc.) on November 13, 2024. Both messages were verification codes: “Your Wonder verification code is 041797” and “Your Wonder verification code is 475599.” They arrived within one minute of each other. That’s it. No links, no promotional language, no call to action, no mention of Wonder’s website or products whatsoever. Richard M. Zelma v. Wonder Group Inc., Case No. 25-cv-3232 (EP) (CF), 2026 WL 1413998 (D.N.J. May 20, 2026).
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, holding that two verification code texts containing nothing promotional, no links, and no mention of products or services do not qualify as “advertisements” or “telephone solicitations” under the TCPA. As a result, Plaintiff’s Do-Not-Call registry claim (Count I) and opt-out notice claim (Count IV) were dismissed with prejudice as futile. The court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11 for filing an amended complaint with inaccurate allegations and for doubling down on a legal theory the court had already expressly rejected.
Zelma’s phone number had been on the federal and state do-not-call registries since 2003. He had no prior relationship with Wonder, had never visited their website, and had never requested any communications from them. After receiving the texts, he called the sender’s number and reached a prerecorded announcement that, according to Zelma, “acknowledged the caller’s interest in the Defendant’s products.”
Zelma filed suit alleging a range of TCPA violations, including claims under §§ 227(c)(3)(F) and 227(b)(2)(D) the Do Not Call registry provisions and the opt-out notice requirement among others.
This case had already been through a motion to dismiss. The court previously dismissed Zelma’s DNC registry claim (Count I) and opt-out notice claim (Count V), while allowing his ATDS-based claims (Counts II and III) to proceed. The court granted leave to amend on the dismissed counts and told Zelma exactly what he would need to plead to survive: he had to allege facts showing the verification texts were advertisements under the TCPA.
The TCPA defines a “telephone solicitation” as a call or message “for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of goods, or services.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4). An “unsolicited advertisement” is material “advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5). The court, applying Third Circuit guidance from Mauthe v. National Imaging Associates, told Zelma plainly: at minimum, he needed to show the texts directly or indirectly informed him that Wonder sells something of value. The messages with verification codes simply did not do that.
The court also squarely rejected Zelma’s “trojan horse” theory – the idea that Wonder sent the unexplained codes as a pretext to lure recipients to its website. The Third Circuit in Mauthe had already closed that door, warning that accepting such reasoning would mean “any message sent by defendant, for any purpose” could qualify as an advertisement.
Given that roadmap, what did Zelma add to his Amended Complaint? Two new allegations: (1) that the messages “directed Plaintiff to engage with Defendant’s website and services,” and (2) that they “encouraged Plaintiff to purchase or use Defendant’s goods or services.”
The court was unimpressed. Looking at the actual text messages – two bare verification codes with no website link, no product mention, and no commercial language of any kind – the court found these allegations simply had no factual support. As the court put it, the amended complaint’s new paragraphs “lack factual support.” The Verification Texts contained, in Zelma’s own words, “no description or explanation.”
And in his Opposition brief, Zelma doubled down on the very trojan horse theory the court had already told him was foreclosed, arguing that the cryptic messages were “a ploy deliberately used by Defendant as unexplained prompts that gave the recipient no context and forced him to search for meaning.” The court noted that the Verification Texts did not even include a link to Wonder’s website making this an even cleaner case than Mauthe, where the fax at issue at least contained website information and still wasn’t deemed an advertisement.
The court dismissed Counts I and IV of the Amended Complaint with prejudice, finding that further amendment would be futile.
Here’s where things get spicy. Wonder Group had moved for Rule 11 sanctions, arguing Zelma filed a frivolous amended complaint. The court agreed the filing was problematic calling the new allegations “patently inaccurate” and noting that Zelma had “repackaged a legal argument the Court explicitly rejected” without any new legal authority to support it.
But here’s the catch: Defense Counsel didn’t follow Rule 11’s procedural requirements. A party-initiated sanctions motion must be filed separately from other motions, must be served on the opposing party first, and must allow 21 days for the challenged paper to be withdrawn before it’s filed with the court. Defense Counsel did none of those things, so the sanctions motion was denied on procedural grounds.
That said, the court noted it has inherent power to sanction parties for bad faith conduct and it exercised that power here. The court ordered Zelma to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing an amended complaint with patently inaccurate allegations and for advancing legal theories the court had already expressly rejected.
For what it’s worth, this is not the first rodeo between these parties. The court noted that Zelma and Defense Counsel have litigated against each other in numerous cases, and the court is well aware of the history.
The main takeaway for TCPA defendants is that verification code texts are not advertisements under the TCPA. The Third Circuit’s Mauthe framework continues to provide solid protection against creative “pretext” or “trojan horse” theories, and courts in New Jersey are applying it rigorously. If a plaintiff can’t point to language in the text that promotes, advertises, or encourages purchase of anything, the DNC registry and opt-out notice claims are going to struggle.
The main takeaway for TCPA plaintiffs is that when a court dismisses your claims and lays out in detail what you’d need to plead to survive, the Amended Complaint needs to actually contain those allegations with factual support not just restate the same conclusory language with a few new adjectives. Filing an amended complaint that mirrors what was already rejected is a path toward sanctions, not success.
For everyone on Rule 11: If you’re moving for sanctions, follow the procedures. Serve the motion. Wait 21 days. File it separately. The court may already be on your side, but procedural mistakes will cost you the motion even when the underlying conduct was sanctionable.
We’ll keep you posted, TCPAWorld!