CALLIER GETS OVER THE FINISH LINE!: Pro Se Litigant Smashes TCPA Defendant on SMS DNC Issues And ATDS As N.D. Tex. Falls

Another huge win by a pro se TCPA litigant crushing a #biglaw firm today–and its bad news for everyone (per usual).

In Callier v. The Finish Line, Inc., 2026 WL 2654093 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2026) the defendant suffered a complete and crushing loss on critical TCPA issues–including whether text messages are calls.

Callier (this is Dwight and not Brandon) alleged the Finish Line sent him SMS messages with links to websites where its shoes could be purchased.

Even though this was an individual TCPA suit brought by a guy without a lawyer the Finish Line retained #biglaw to defend it… and (predictably) it did not go well.

First, Finish Line argued SMS messages aren’t calls. They apparently submitted six “Notice(s) of Supplemental Authority” but “neither acknowledged the intra-circuit opinions in Alvarez and McGongile nor argued that either case was wrongly decided.” In other words, Finish Line’s counsel probably should have lead with a discussion of the applicable local rulings– tis is why the Troutman Amin, LLP map is so critical!– instead of focusing on new rulings from other locations. In the end the Court followed the rulings of other Texas-based courts that the defendant failed to acknowledge or address.

The Court also rejected Finish Line’s (much weaker) argument that cell phones are not “residential” for purposes of the TCPA’s DNC rules. There is some authority on this point but–again–Texas courts have held regularly that cell phones do equal residential lines so Finish Line didn’t have much of a chance on this one.

Perhaps most stunningly, however, the Finish Line also lost on their motion to dismiss the ATDS claims. These cases are tossed at the pleadings stage pretty routinely and for a pro se to beat a #biglaw firm on this issue is just embarassing.

But the court found the allegations to be sufficient. Here’s the analysis:

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used an ATDS to “randomly generate[ ]” and store Plaintiff’s telephone number and later used that same system to send 97 automated text messages to Plaintiff. Doc. 3 at 12, 15. His Complaint also details the content of the messages and the context in which they were received. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that each message contained similarly formatted text followed by a clickable link to Defendant’s website; that the messages all contained solicitations advertising Defendant’s products or promotional sales and discounts; that each message was sent from the same five-digit SMS short code, “45819”; and that Plaintiff had no prior relationship with Defendant. Doc. 3 at 6-12.  In arguing that these allegations amount to nothing more than “vague generalizations,” Defendant overlooks many of the detailed facts outlined above. Doc. 8 at 20. Indeed, the Complaint alleges many of the same facts and circumstances that courts have found sufficient to support a plausible inference that an ATDS was used. …. By contrast, the authorities on which Defendant relies are readily distinguishable.

So there you go.

Final score. Callier: 3 BigLaw: 0

Worst of all the N.D. Tex has now fallen to the “SMS equals call” side of the equation.

That makes it the 15th federal district court to so hold–compared to 13 on the other side of the fence.

We will keep an eye on all of this.

And you should keep an eye on the amazing Nima Hakimi–CEO of Convoso–as he breaks down recent carrier developments preventing your calls from getting through on Deserve to Win 49!

Chat soon.