YOU CAN’T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!: The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Grants Summary Judgement For TCPA Claims Based On A Business Telephone Number.

Hi, TCPAWorld! Kelly Sandberg here, with a case on the variances between a business telephone number and a residential telephone number for TCPA purposes.

In Jourey Newell v. JR Capital, LLC, Plaintiff Jourey Newell asserted violations of the TCPA against Defendant JR Capital LLC for failing to meet the stated caller ID requirements. Jourey Newell v. JR Capital, LLC, No. 25-1419, 2026 WL 2408527 (E.D. Pa. August 17, 2026). Ultimately, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Defendant JR Capital’s motion for summary judgement. The Court held that Newell lacked standing to bring the claim because he used the phone number at issue as a business number during the relevant period and each claim he brought requires the phone number to be qualified as residential in order to have standing.

Between November 4, 2022, and February 27, 2025, Newell received five telemarketing text messages from JR Capital to his phone number ending in 4132. The text messages advertised financing for business equipment and vehicles. Four of these text messages included a phone number to contact, all of the text messages included a link to JR Capital’s website at jrwcap.com/equipment, but none of the messages included JR Capital’s name. Additionally, each text message included instructions to “stop” and opt out of the messaging.

After receiving two text messages, Newell emailed JR Capital’s general email address with a request to stop sending text messages and to place him on its internal Do Not Call List. JR Capital maintains an internal procedure to honor opt-out requests by the text reply channel but stated that they had missed Newell’s email requesting to opt-out due to “human error.”

Now, recall that Newell received these messages on his phone number ending in 4132. This specific phone number was initially used by Newell starting in 2016 for his home-based landscaping business called Newell Landscaping. This was initially the company’s sole contact number, but in 2018 Newell added an additional phone number for the business ending in 1170. Newell testified that the 1170 number was attained to be the business’s primary number, but that he received incidental calls to the 4132 number multiple times a week from long time customers.

Later in 2023, Newell formed a successor entity, Newell Contracting LLC, which was also a home-based company offering contracting services and landscaping. The 4132 number was also used in connection with Newell Contracting multiple times a week, but Newell insisted that he did not put the number out as a business number for people to contact. He contended that people unwittingly contacted the 4132 number under circumstances out of his control.

Newell later registered Newell Contracting LLC as a home improvement contractor with the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. In submitting the online registration application, Newell used the 4132 number. In February 2024, Newell then registered Newell Contracting LLC as a “carrier” with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrations. In submitting that online application, he also provided the 4132 number. It was not until July of 2025 that Newell submitted a new form with the 1170 number.

Are you seeing the pattern here?

Now, in this litigation the Court reviewed JR Capital’s motion for summary judgement under the standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), as described in Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

The parties contested specifically whether 47 C.F.R. §64.1601(e)(1) required Newell to meet the residential phone number requirement to maintain standing under §227(c). JR Capital argued that Newell’s phone number was a business number, entitling them to summary judgement. Additionally, JR Capital contended that the Court need not address the merits because Newell should be equitably estopped from pursuing claims that require for a number to be residential.

Equitable estoppel “arises when one by his acts, representations, or admissions, or by his silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts.” Zitelli v. Dermatology Educ. & Research Found., 633 A.2d 134, 139 (Pa. 1993) (quotations omitted). “‘[T]he party asserting equitable estoppel must show “(1) a misrepresentation by another party; (2) which he reasonably relied upon; (3) to his detriment.”’” Shelton v. Pro Source Lending Grp. LLC, No. 24-4394, 2025 WL 817485, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2025) (quotations omitted).

Here, the Court concluded that Newell’s inclusion of the 4132 number in two government registrations during the period he received the text messages, had induced JR Capital to reasonably believe that the 4132 number was considered Newell’s business number. The Court found that JR Capital had rightfully relied on sending the text messages to Newell because JR Capital’s business model offers financing for companies. The elements of misrepresentation, inducement and detrimental reliance were present, and Newell was equitably estopped from pursuing claims on the 4132 number as residential.

Because the FCC has not provided clear guidance on phone numbers with a history of mixed-use, the Court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent. The Ninth Circuit has “found that mixed-use numbers are not per-se excluded from the TCPA’s protections when registered on the NDNC [National Do Not Call Registry], and that such numbers require a case-by-case evaluation.” Pro Source, 2025 WL 817485, at *3 n.3.

In order to evaluate the case at hand, the Court allowed JR Capital to rebut the general presumption that a phone number is residential by showing that Newell used the phone number “to such an extent and in such a manner as to be properly regarded as” a business line. Chennette v. Porch.com, Inc., 50 F 4^th 1217, at 1225-26 (9^th Cir. 2022).  The Court reviewed five factors: “(1) how the plaintiff holds the phone number out to the public; (2) whether the plaintiff’s phone is registered with the telephone company as a residential or business line; (3) how much the plaintiff uses their phone for business or employment; (4) who pays for the phone bills; and (5) other factors bearing on how a reasonable observer would view the phone line.” Id. at 1225.

Despite Newell’s argument that he did not put the 4132 number out as a business number for people to contact, he had still used the 4132 number for his business multiple times a week, received “incidental” calls to the 4132 number from longtime customers, and had listed the number on two government registrations after forming Newell Contracting. Because the government registrations for Newell Contracting took place during the period that Newell received multiple texts from JR Capital, and because Newell failed to remove the 4132 number from the registration until months into the litigation, the Court found that the number could properly be regarded as a business line.

The important takeaway to note here is that a telephone number is likely to be held out as either a residential or business number based on the characterizations of how the number is held out – publicly or privately – and the number’s intended use as shown by the owner’s conduct.