TIMING MATTERS: Whether a Phone is “Residential” Turns on its Use at The Time It Was Registered on the DNC List Court Holds

LCOC V Ticket Prices as I post: $239.00

The question of whether a cellular phone used for both personal and business purposes can be the subject of a TCPA DNC claim is currently in wide dispute in TCPAWorld.

Some courts hold a cellular phone can never be a “residential” number as the DNC rules require.

Others hold  the number is “residential” so long as it is used for personal purposes in any meaningful way–even if it is also held out publicly as a business line.

Well a court in Michigan just held the issue turns on not how the phone is being used for business purposes but when– and this is very interesting.

In Dobronski v. Tony Packo’s 2026 WL 2969611 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 2, 2026) the Court tossed a suit brought by repeat litigator Mark Dobronski holding his phone number was not used for “residential” purposes at the time the number was registered on the DNC back in 2003.

Dobronski argued he has used his number for residential purposes exclusively since 2021 but conceded the phone was used for mixed purposes previously. Defendant supplied records demonstrating the number was publicly a business number and– critically– that it was used in that capacity in 2003.

The parties presented this issue as a matter of standing, but the court correctly determined the issue of residential usage was a substantive merits issue and determined the issue squarely as a matter of law.

At bottom the court determined that since Dobronski was using the phone for business purposes at the time he registered it the fact that he now uses the phone for residential purposes does not change the outcome and his case was dismissed.

This is an interesting ruling, but I’m not sure the “once a business line always a business line” argument holds up. The CFR provides a market cannot call:

A residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the Federal Government.

So the restriction looks at the present condition of the subscriber as a residential subscriber even if that subscriber took action in the past.

While I will argue 1000 times out of 1000 that the Dobronskis of the world must have personally placed their number on the DNC list– that is what the regulation says– I struggle to see how this provision requires the subscriber to have been residential at the time the number was registered. But that is what the Dobronski court held– so use it wisely.

Bottom line– looking at the use of the phone at the time the number was placed on the DNC list can be a silver bullet in some jurisdictions. Litigate accordingly!

If you want educate yourself on the latest TCPA developments like this one be sure to tune in to the WEEKLY Deserve to Win podcast where we break down all of the biggest TCPA developments from the week before. Plus we have great interviews with guests relevant to the TCPAWorld. Catch Episode 52 with Plaintiff’s lawyer Ilan Lavian right now:

Chat soon.