ALL TALK, NO FACTS!: California Court Recommends Dismissal of Three TCPA Claims Against Debt Collector

On October 22, 2026, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued findings and recommendations in Rios v. Credence Resource Management, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-01801-DAD-CSK (PS), 2026 WL 3168847 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2026), recommending dismissal of three TCPA claims against debt collector Credence Resource Management, LLC (“Credence”). Specifically, the Court recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s ATDS claim without leave to amend because his conclusory allegations failed to establish ATDS usage and instead suggested the calls were specifically targeted at him. The Court also recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s prerecorded voice claim for failing to allege the absence of oral consent and his National DNC Registry claim for failing to establish that the calls constituted telephone solicitations, both with leave to amend.

Background

Plaintiff Jesus Rios alleged that Credence placed four calls to his cellular telephone between March 25, 2026, and April 3, 2026, using an automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded voice without his prior consent.

According to Rios, each call began with a prerecorded message advising that the call would be recorded, followed by a live agent who addressed him by his full name.

Rios further alleged that his telephone number had been registered on the National DNC Registry since September 29, 2023, and that he had never maintained an account, debt, contract, or business relationship with Credence.

Based on these allegations, Rios asserted TCPA claims under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) for Credence’s alleged use of an ATDS and an artificial or prerecorded voice without consent, as well as a separate claim under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) for contacting a number registered on the DNC Registry.

Credence moved to dismiss all three claims for failure to state a claim. And despite having received an additional opportunity to oppose the motion, Rios, who was proceeding without counsel, failed to do so.

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)

The Court began its analysis by addressing Plaintiff’s claims under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), addressing first whether Plaintiff sufficiently alleged the use of an ATDS and then whether the alleged use of an artificial or prerecorded voice violated the TCPA.

ATDS Use

As we already know, under Facebook, a necessary feature of an ATDS is the ability to use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce telephone numbers to be called.

Credence argued that Rios’s allegations were conclusory and, more importantly, that his own description of the calls undermined his ATDS theory.

The Court agreed.

Although Rios alleged that Credence used an ATDS, he failed to provide any supporting facts suggesting that Credence’s equipment randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers.

But here’s where things got interesting.

Rios specifically alleged that Credence’s agents addressed him by his full name and that each call was a deliberate, intentional, and targeted act. The Court agreed with Credence that these allegations suggested the calls were specifically directed at Rios rather than made using a random or sequential number generator. In fact, the Court emphasized that “a call cannot be both random and targeted.”

And when you think about it, the Court’s reasoning makes sense. How can a call be randomly generated if, by Rios’s own allegations, it was deliberately directed at him? You just can’t have it both ways.

Consent

The Court also observed that Rios alleged a lack of prior express written consent, even though the TCPA does not require written consent for calls that do not involve advertising or telemarketing.

Finding that Rios’s own allegations defeated his ATDS theory and that an amendment would be futile, the Court recommended dismissing the claim without leave to amend.

Artificial or Prerecorded Voice Usage

Next, the Court considered Rios’s claim that Credence violated the TCPA by beginning each of the four calls with an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Rios alleged that each call began with a prerecorded message advising that the conversation would be recorded and that he had never provided prior express written consent to receive the calls.

But once again, Rios ran into a problem: written consent was not necessarily required in the first place.

Relying on Loyhayem v. Fraser Financial & Insurance Services, Inc., 7 F. 4th 1232 (9th Cir. 2021), the Court explained that the TCPA generally requires prior express consent for calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice, but such consent need not be in writing unless the calls involve advertising or telemarketing.

Here, because Rios did not allege that the calls involved advertising or telemarketing, prior express oral consent would have been sufficient. And while Rios alleged that he never provided written consent, he failed to address whether he had provided oral consent. The Court, therefore, found that Rios failed to sufficiently plead the absence of prior express consent, an essential element of his claim.

Unlike the ATDS claim, however, the Court determined that Rios could potentially correct this deficiency by alleging additional facts concerning consent.

Thus, the Court recommended dismissing the artificial or prerecorded voice claim, but this time, with leave to amend.

47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)

Finally, the Court addressed Rios’s claim that Credence violated the TCPA’s DNC regulations by calling his cellular telephone despite his registration on the National DNC Registry.

And here’s another important reminder: being registered on the DNC Registry does not automatically make every unwanted call a TCPA violation.

Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2), the TCPA prohibits telephone solicitations to numbers registered on the National DNC Registry. The FCC defines a telephone solicitation as a call or message made for the purpose of encouraging the purchase, rental, or investment in property, goods, or services.

Importantly, the Court explained that calls made solely for debt collection purposes do not constitute telephone solicitations and therefore are not subject to the TCPA’s restrictions on telephone solicitations.

Here, Rios alleged that Credence was engaged in the business of debt collection and that he had never maintained an account, debt, contract, or business relationship with the company. However, Rios failed to allege facts establishing that the four calls were made for the purpose of encouraging him to purchase or invest in goods or services.

Although the Court acknowledged that the calls likely concerned debt collection given Credence’s business, Rios had not alleged the actual purpose of the calls or explained how they qualified as telephone solicitations under the FCC’s regulations.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that Rios failed to state a claim under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).

Nevertheless, because Rios was proceeding without counsel and could potentially allege additional facts establishing that the calls constituted telephone solicitations, the Court recommended dismissing the DNC claim with leave to amend.

For TCPAWorld, this case serves as an important reminder that conclusory allegations are insufficient, written consent is not always required, and calls made solely for debt collection purposes do not constitute telephone solicitations under the DNC regulations.

We’ll be keeping an eye on what happens next. Stay tuned!