ARTICLE
22 September 2026

Meanwhile In Florida: The Hon. Aileen M. Cannon Just Reminded Everyone Cell Phones Are Not “Residential” Lines Under The TCPA… (Video)

Troutman Amin LLP

Contributor

Troutman Amin, LLP is a nationally recognized litigation and privacy law firm handling complex federal litigation and advising on emerging privacy and telecommunications issues. Built on integrity, hard work, loyalty, and gratitude, the firm delivers sophisticated legal counsel with a straightforward, client-first approach and a commitment to doing things right.
A federal court in Florida has issued a groundbreaking ruling that cell phones do not qualify as residential lines under the TCPA's Do Not Call provisions, potentially reshaping how businesses approach telemarketing compliance. The decision, authored by Judge Aileen M. Cannon, challenges the FCC's authority to extend DNC protections to wireless subscribers and represents a significant departure from established precedent. Will other courts follow this controversial interpretation that could fundamentally al
United States Florida Consumer Protection

Well it is a pretty exciting day around TCPAWorld.

Just a few moments ago I dropped word of a new FCC ruling that will make it far easier for businesses to recognize and honor TCPA revocation and opt out requests.

And now I get to discuss a new ruling out of the S.D.Fl. holding that cell phones are not residential lines for DNC purposes.

In MICHAEL ANTHONY, v. BRIAN MARKETING GROUP, Doc. 22 (S.D. Fl. Sept. 11, 2026) the court just refused to enter default judgment in favor of the Plaintiff concluding the SMS messages to his cell phone at issue in the case did not trigger the TCPA’s DNC rules.

However this ruling was NOT based on the conclusion that texts aren’t telephone calls– as son many other courts have found. Instead the court determined cell phones aren’t residential lines (as required by the DNC rules) to begin with:

This is because the enabling statute, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), authorizes the FCC to promulgate regulations to protect the privacy rights of “residential telephone subscribers[],” not cellular phone subscribers. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), (e). Because the FCC’s 2003 Order purports to redefine the term “residential telephone subscriber” to include “wireless subscriber” and thereby to expand the private right of action under § 227(c)(5) to all cellphone users, the FCC has exceeded its statutory authority under § 227(c)(1)–(2) in that regard.

Holy smokes!

This is a huge and remarkable departure from the majority rule– and it is a lengthy and extremely well reasoned opinion (especially considering it was issued in response to a default judgment effort!)

This opinion was penned by the Hon. Aileen M. Cannon– famous for tossing the Biden DOJ’s case against Trump related to the confidential documents he took to Mar A Lago– and it is definitely worth the read.

Will be interesting to see if other courts are prepared to follow her lead. We’ll keep an eye on all of this.

And you should keep an eye on Deserve to Win. Ep 49 with special guest Nima Hakimi!

Also shout out to my buddy Jeffrey B. Pertnoy over at Akerman for flagging this for me!

Chat soon.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More