CONSENT DOESN’T SAVE STAPLES: Staples Loses Questionable Standing Argument in TCPA Class Action After Allegedly Sending Unwanted Marketing Texts

Law Conference of Champions V ticket prices as I type: $439.00 (and rising).

Staples has been losing a lot of TCPA decisions lately.

Not long ago we reported Staples losing on an argument that Troutman Amin, LLP won literally the same week for a different client.

And now Staples has lost a critical ruling on an issue of consent that it probably shouldn’t even has raised.

In Rubin v. Staples, Inc. 2026 WL 3205681 (D. N.J. Oct. 26, 2026) Plaintiff sued Staples claiming it had sent him numerous unwanted text messages despite his repeatedly asking Staples to “Stop” with the texts.

If these facts are true this is a pretty clear violation of the TCPA’s internal DNC rules (Assuming a private right of action for SMS messages exists under the statute, which is an issue Staples lost earlier in the case.)

Instead of getting into discovery and trying to defeat certification Staples thought it would be a good idea to argue the Plaintff somehow lacks standing because he provided consent to the texts.

Pause.

Standing is a rarely applicable doctrine that is limited to issues where the named Plaintiff wasn’t really directly impacted by the conduct so as to give rise to a valid controversy between the parties. Here the Plaintiff claims he personally received unwanted text messages after he personally told Staples to stop it so he personally sued them.

That’s about as clear a case as standing as you are ever going to see– and even if Plaintiff had consented to the original SMS his revocation would have been sufficient to override that consent. But even if it wasn’t that is still a merits issue and not an issue of standing. So the motion was utterly meritless to my eye.

And the court agreed:

Because Staples allegedly sent the text messages at issue, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s consent, particularly where Plaintiff purports to have revoked his consent, so completely severed the causal connection that his injuries are not even indirectly traceable to Defendant. Indeed, whether the texts that Plaintiff received were because of Staples’s alleged internal and national DNC violations is a merits question involving a factual dispute to be addressed in discovery. Likewise, to the extent the parties seek to resolve factual disputes regarding the purported transmission of the Stop text messages, Staples considers consent to be a “critical issue of liability,” see Def. Reply Br. at 9, ECF No. 44, that can also be explored during normal discovery. Even if consent, which is an affirmative defense, ultimately shields Staples from liability under the TCPA, Plaintiff is not deprived of standing to sue.

Yep.

Now I get it, Staples was trying to backdoor evidence of consent on a motion that is usually limited to the four corners of the complaint and crossed its fingers the court would rule in its favor– but in a suit where the plaintiff alleges multiple revocations all you’re going to do with this sort of motion is piss off the judge. And that appears to be what happened here.

We’ll keep an eye on this one.

And for those of you interested in AI implementation in call centers and how best to use AI outreach to drive sales you MUST check out Deserve to Win ep. 55 with the amazing Matthew Black of Mav!

Chat soon.