PRETTY SIMPLE: Allegations of Generic Messages With the Same Content Sufficient to State Prerecorded Call Claim

Easing myself back into the groove here with some nice easy blogs this Monday morning.

One interesting question that often stumps TCPA litigators is the sufficiency of allegations related to prerecorded calls. There is a line of cases suggesting merely alleging a call is prerecorded is not enough–factual allegations are required. But what facts?

Well in Mayhew v. Home Care Pulse, LLC  2026 WL 1830743 (D. Ks. June 25, 2026) the court held allegations of repeated messages with the “same” content that cut off repeatedly were sufficient to allege prerecorded call usage.

Here’s the analysis:

There are no “hyper-technical” pleading requirements for claims under § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). Id. But a plaintiff must allege
sufficient facts that support an inference that a message was prerecorded. Id. A plaintiff is not required “to plead every detail
about every text message or telephone call placed.” Sojka v. DirectBuy, Inc., 35 F. Supp. 3d 996, 1004 (N.D. Ill. 2014). A court
in the Tenth Circuit has found it sufficient that a plaintiff alleged callers “left a generic, standardized prerecorded message” on
several occasions to draw the inference that a prerecorded voice was used. See Van Baalen, 729 F. Supp. 3d at 1249.

Plaintiff meets that standard. He alleges he received the same prerecorded message (though some were truncated) on 14 different
occasions. The calls came from the same number. His allegations go beyond a conclusory allegation of a prerecorded message.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not allege the voicemails were “identical,” only that they were the “same.” Doc. 9 at 7. This
distinction, to the extent it is one, is not persuasive. Although Plaintiff did not specifically plead the calls were identical, the
transcripts of each message show the messages were identical to the extent they were captured. See Rose v. New TSI Holdings,
Inc., 2022 WL 912967, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (“Courts have denied motions to dismiss in cases brought under the TCPA in which plaintiffs have alleged that they received prerecorded calls and that the contents of the call were identical.”). Fourteen substantively identical messages supports an inference that the messages were prerecorded.

The fact that some of the messages were cut off or truncated on several instances does not make Plaintiff’s allegations of a
prerecorded message any less plausible. The substance of the message captured was still the same. That some messages were cut
off actually supports an inference that the calls were prerecorded because a live person would presumably not start a message
in the middle of a sentence. See Fluker v. Ally Fin., Inc., 2025 WL 1827747, at *4 (6th Cir. 2025) (noting that evidence like
“conspicuous periods of dead air in the middle of the message” could support an allegation of use of an artificial or prerecorded
voice).

The messages were also generic in nature and did not reference Plaintiff by name. This also supports an inference that they
were prerecorded. See Taylor v. Kin Ins., Inc., 2025 WL 1651524, at *2 (N.D. Ill. 2025) (finding that allegations of prerecorded
messages were plausible where voicemails were “identical in tone, voice, content, and style,” others received the same call, and
the messages were generic and didn’t use the plaintiff’s name).

In sum, Plaintiff’s allegations go beyond a conclusory statement that the calls were prerecorded. He has alleged he received 14
substantively identical and generic messages, some of which were cut off in the middle of a sentence. This supports an inference
that the calls were prerecorded. Based on the facts alleged, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of the TCPA based on the
use of an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Ok. This makes sense and it gives you a pretty good idea of what courts are looking for in terms of allegations here.

Also keep in mind a prerecorded call claim under 227(b) is far more dangerous than a 227(c) DNC claim because it carries a MINIMUM of $500.00 per call recovery and there is no bona fide error defense. So watch out!

Good to be back. Love you all.

Chat soon.