SAME MESSAGE. SAME NUMBER. SAME RESULTS: Kansas District Court Finds Repeated Generic Voicemails Sufficient To Plead A TCPA Prerecorded Voice Claim

Hi TCPAWorld!

A recent TCPA decision serves as a reminder that the scope of a motion to dismiss matters.

In a recent case out of the Kansas, allegations of substantially identical, generic voicemail messages – even those cut off mid-sentence – were enough to plausibly infer the use of a prerecorded voice. In Matthew Mayhew v. Home Care Pulse, LLC, 2:25-cv-02657-HLT-ADM (D. Kansas June 25, 2026), U.S. District Judge Holly L. Teeter denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss because the plaintiff plausibly alleged use of a prerecorded voice in violation of the TCPA. However, defendant’s only challenge in their motion to dismiss was that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege the use of a prerecorded voice.

The plaintiff alleged to have received 14 voicemail messages from the same telephone number over several months. Each message contained the same generic survey invitation. Notably, several of the voicemails were abbreviated, beginning in the middle of the sentence before continuing with the remainder of the message. The complaint further alleged that none of the messages referenced the plaintiff by name, and that each appeared to be prerecorded.

The defendant’s only argument was that these allegations were too conclusory and that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that a prerecorded voice had in fact been used.

The court was not convinced.

The terms “artificial or prerecorded voice” are not defined by the TCPA. The court stated that the plaintiff need not satisfy any “hyper-technical” pleading standard. Instead, the court held that the plaintiff must only allege enough factual content to allow a reasonable inference that a prerecorded voice was used. The allegations of 14 sustainably identical voicemail, generic messages originating from the same telephone number that did not identify the plaintiff by name and were, in some instances, cut-off mid-sentence supported that inference.

In fact, the court cited support that cut-off messages may strengthen the inference that a message was prerecorded as a live caller would not ordinarily begin speaking mid-sentence.

This decision serves as another reminder that courts continue to permit prerecorded voice claims to proceed where plaintiffs allege characteristics commonly associated with prerecorded messages.  It is also a good reminder that at the pleading stage, plaintiffs need only to allege facts making the conclusion plausible – they need not prove that the prerecorded voice was used.

Mayhew illustrates that relying on repetitive, standardized voicemail campaigns may prove enough factual support to survive an early motion to dismiss, even without technical evidence regarding the calling platform. Another important takeaway is the defendant’s limited challenges in its motion to dismiss. The defendant could have pursued additional arguments but instead chose to challenge only the sufficiency of the prerecorded voice allegations, leaving other potential challenges unaddressed.

Another day in TCPAWorld, folks! Check back for continued analysis of the latest TCPA cases and developments.