Greetings TCPAWorld!
It seems that the good news keeps rolling!
In EDWARD J. KOELLER V. OX APPSEC SECURITY, INC., 2026 WL 2935851 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 30, 2026), the court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim because TCPA’s DNC provisions do not extend to cellphones.
And this comes just after Florida’s decision, where the Southern District of Florida also determined cell phones aren’t residential lines. Michael Anthony v. Brian Marketing Group, 2026 WL 2685650 (S.D. Fl. Sept. 11, 2026).
It seems that courts are starting to depart from the majority rule, and it’s so nice to see.
The court in Koeller found no basis for finding that cell phone users had a private right of action.
The court relied heavily on the fact that, at the time Congress enacted the TCPA, a residential telephone was a telephone connected with a residence or, in other words, a home phone. And that Congress included language distinguishing cell phones and home phones in another section of the same act, meaning that Congress intentionally and purposely excluded cell phones from the coverage afforded under the TCPA.
In 2003, the FCC redefined the term “residential telephone subscriber” to include cellphones under a TCPA Claim. But the Koeller court noted that after Loper Bright and McLaughlin, courts should determine for themselves whether the agency’s interpretation of the TCPA is correct.
Therefore, the court held that reading the TCPA as written, cellphones fall outside of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)’s coverage.
The court also didn’t shy away from the fact that most people do not own landline phones and exclusively use cellphones. But, it made clear that updating the statute to extend coverage to cellphones is Congress’s job, not the courts.
*Mic drop*
Well, it is a pretty exciting day around TCPAWorld, and I remain curious to see what other courts are prepared to follow. Stay tuned for more updates!
Discover more from TCPAWorld
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.