Hi TCPAWorld!
We have an interesting ruling out of Pennsylvania, and after hearing the facts, you might feel the same way.
How much involvement do you think is needed in an alleged calling campaign to keep a defendant in a TCPA lawsuit?
Apparently, identifying a connection may be enough.
At least that’s what the court held in Marchetti v. 46 Labs, LLC d/b/a Hypercube Networks, No. 26-5805, 2026 WL 3137252 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2026), where the Eastern District of Pennsylvania partially denied a Defendant’s motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff’s TCPA claims to proceed while dismissing his Pennsylvania state-law claims.
Let’s break it down.
The plaintiff alleged that he received numerous unsolicited calls promoting consumer lending and related financial services, despite being registered on the National and Pennsylvania Do Not Call Registries. After investigating, Plaintiff identified 46 Labs individually and as an entity allegedly associated with the telephone numbers, routing, infrastructure, or services connected to the calls.
Addressing the TCPA claims, the court relied on the FCC’s 2013 Dish Network ruling, which provides that a party generally “initiates” a call when it takes the steps necessary to physically place the call.
Although Plaintiff acknowledged in his Complaint that he did not know the Defendant’s precise role, he alleged that his investigation found that Defendant is associated with the telephone numbers, routing, infrastructure, or services connected to the calls. And further alleging that 46 Labs representative identified two other entities connected to Defendant as having sent the calls.
Here is what’s interesting. Despite the court recognizing that merely playing a minor role in the causal chain does not constitute initiating a call, the Court found Plaintiff’s allegations connecting Defendant to the calling campaign sufficient to survive dismissal, even without identifying Defendant’s precise involvement.
Not quite the outcome you might expect.
The Court also rejected Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a qualifying telephone solicitation under Section 227(c). Plaintiff alleged that the calls promoted consumer lending and related financial services and that he received repeated calls which the Court found to be sufficient to satisfy the TCPA’s statutory definition of telephone solicitation at the pleading stage.
But 46 Labs did secure a victory on the Pennsylvania state-law claims.
The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s Pennsylvania Telemarketer Registration Act (“PTRA”) and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”) claims with prejudice.
The PTRA does not provide a private right of action, and as for the UTPCPL, the Court explained that a private claim requires a qualifying purchase or lease of goods or services and an ascertainable loss of money or property resulting from the unlawful conduct.
Plaintiff failed to make these allegations and instead attempted to satisfy the statute’s requirements by arguing that his cellphone was the personal property targeted and impaired by the unlawful calls.
But the Court was not persuaded and ultimately dismossed both Pennsylvania state-law claims.
Now, while 46 Labs did not get its preferred outcome on the TCPA claims, this decision serves as an important reminder.
Allegations connecting a Defendant to the infrastructure, routing, or services of allegedly unlawful calls may be sufficient to survive dismissal, even when the Plaintiff cannot identify Defendant’s specific role or involvement.
As always, stay tuned for more updates!