TIMING MATTERS: Eastern District of Washington Dismisses Complaint Despite Continued Calls After DNC Request

Hilton made thirteen calls after Plaintiff told it to stop calling, and somehow the lawsuit still got dismissed.

Interestingly enough, a Washington federal judge did not care about the number of calls placed.

In Plenty v. Hilton Resorts Corp., 2026 WL 3411213 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 10, 2026), the Eastern District Court of Washington dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint after finding that the allegedly unlawful calls occurred within the 10-business-day grace period permitted for honoring DNC requests.

Plaintiff, Melissa Plenty, had previously made room reservations with Hilton in February and December 2025, which she ultimately canceled due to a medical condition that prevented her from traveling.

On February 10, 2026, Hilton allegedly called Plaintiff to encourage her to make additional reservations. During that call, Plaintiff asked Hilton to stop calling her, but the calls didn’t stop.

Plenty alleges in the SAC that Hilton placed 13 additional telemarketing calls between February 11 and February 25, 2026, after Plenty’s DNC request.

Plenty alleged that Hilton failed to implement proper DNC procedures as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) and deliberately continued calling during the 10-business-day grace period to maximize its marketing efforts before the deadline expired.

Hilton moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient facts to support inadequate DNC procedures and that the alleged calls occurred during the 10-business-day grace period.

And the Court ultimately agreed with Hilton.

Plenty did not dispute that all 13 calls occurred within that period. Instead, she argued based on the statute’s “reasonable time” language. Specifically, that Hilton violated the TCPA because it failed to honor her DNC request before the grace period ended, even though Hilton could reasonably have done so.

But the Court wasn’t buying it. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3) is clear. Telemarketers must honor DNC requests within a reasonable time, not to exceed ten business days.

The Court declined to conduct an additional reasonableness inquiry, noting that the compliance period was expressly provided to allow companies time to record and honor do-not-call requests.

And Plenty failed to identify any binding authority supporting her interpretation.

Because the last alleged call occurred on February 25, 2026, which was the last day of the 10-business-day grace period, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had failed to allege a cognizable TCPA violation.

The Court ultimately dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, finding that she had already been placed on notice of the deficiencies in her claims before filing the operative pleading.

It’s worth noting that when calls are made within the grace period, the number of calls does not matter, at least under this Court’s interpretation.

As always, stay tuned, TCPAWorld!