Law Conference of Champions V ticket prices as I type: $249.00 (and rising)
Not long ago the application of the TCPA’s DNC restrictions was pretty straightforward.
You received two or more unsolicited marketing calls or texts to a residential number on the DNC list and you had a claim.
A series of new cases has cast this entire framework into doubt–yet there remains turbulence and confusion among the district courts.
At the most extreme end, the court in Internicola v. Mortgagepros, 2026 WL 3027393 (M.D. Fl. Sept. 24, 2026) recently held there is no cause of action for DNC claims at all. This flows from the fact 227(c)(5) gives parties the right to sue for claims rising out of FCC regulations implemented “under this section” but the section mandated the FCC to issue DNC implementation by 1992– and the Commission did not do so until 2003.
While this is a fun little ruling it flies in the face of hundreds of decisions reaching the opposite conclusion. Still it is something to keep an eye on because if the ruling is adopted by other courts it could mean the end of TCPA DNC claims entirely.
Slightly less expansive are rulings suggesting the TCPA DNC’s rules do not apply to cell phones. For instance in Michael Anthony v. Brian Marketing Group, Case No. 9:24-cv-80800, Doc. 22 (S.D. Fl. Sept. 11, 2026) the court refused to enter a default judgment to the plaintiff concluding cell phones are not “residential” lines. This ruling is possible owing to recent Supreme Court decisions allowing district courts to disregard FCC ruling that have long held cell phones are “residential” when used for personal purposes.
Decisions such as Anthony–if followed–would limit DNC rights of action to calls placed to landline phones only, a staggering reduction of the scope of the statute given the limited role of landlines in 2026.
On the more moderate side, the majority of courts now hold the SMS messages are not “telephone calls” and cannot form the basis for a DNC claim. See Ankrah v. Streamline Funding, 2026 WL 3027138 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 29, 2026) for one recent example among many.) While there are still numerous jurisdictions concluding otherwise, the map on this subject is decidedly green:
You will notice the district courts in the 3rd, 5th and 9th are permitting DNC claims involving SMS messages to proceed. The rest of the country, essentially, says otherwise.
The unavailability of the DNC to prevent unwanted marketing messages in numerous jurisdictions seems likely to make the problem of spam texting worse– even as small businesses can breathe a sigh of relief they will no longer be targeted by as many spam lawsuits.
Yet the courts that have ruled SMS messages are subject to DNC restrictions have done so emphatically. For instance in Hopkins v. Homelight, 2026 WL 3026486 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 2026) the court refused to certify an interlocutory appeal on the issue concluding there was no “substantial ground for difference of opinion” on the issue of whether SMS are calls for TCPA DNC purposes.
So there you go. All that was solid was now melted into air and the scope of the TCPA’s DNC provisions are now deeply in flux.
If you’d like to stay on top of TCPA developments be sure to subscribe to TCPAWorld.com and attend next summer’s Law Conference of Champions V where we will provide the most current analysis of the entire body of TCPA law as it exists. Tickets are only $249.00 today but rising daily– so buy now and save a ton!
Chat soon.