ARTICLE
23 October 2026

NOT MARKETING: Court Reminds TCPAWorld That Debt Collection Just Doesn’t Trigger The DNC Rules (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 Maryland dismissed both TCPA claims against debt collector TrueAccord, ruling that debt collection calls don't qualify as marketing solicitations under DNC rules and that the company's dialing system doesn't meet the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system. The decision reinforces the distinction between debt collection communications and marketing calls under federal telecommunications law.
United States Consumer Protection

Law Conference of Champions V Ticket Price as I post: $229.00

A lot of esoteric and nuanced rulings in TCPAWorld recently.

This one isn’t.

Debt collection isn’t marketing. The end.

In Nickson v. TrueAccord Corp. 2026 WL 2979443 (D. Md. Oct. 5, 2026) Plaintiff argued he received unwanted debt collection calls from defendant he did not consent to. So he sued TrueAccord was sued for violating both the regulated technology portion of the TCPA and the DNC portion. But he lost both claims.

As to the ATDS component the defendant properly introduced evidence that its dialer “does not ‘create, derive or independently store telephone numbers’ and that ‘[t]he Platform does not permit the sending of messages using random number generation or sequential number generation functionality.'” Nice work there– the Defendant properly addressed both the “produce” and the “store” prong of the ATDS formulation with its record evidence. That left Plaintiff nowhere to hide and his ATDS claim failed.

On the DNC claim the analysis was even more straightforward. The DNC rules only apply to solicitations– and a solicitation “is a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services…”

But the calls at issue were debt collection calls–made for the purpose of making plaintiff pay for his purchase or rental of property, goods, or services. But that is not the same.

Because Plaintiff could not allege a marketing purpose to the debt collection calls the DNC claim automatically failed.

This is, without question, the proper result– even if it means debt collectors can hound you with debt collection calls without your consent under the TCPA. But that is where the FDCPA’s rules come in to protect consumers, at least in theory.

Also Troutman Amin, LLP was the first law firm in America to BAN GenAI usage in the practice of law– and the firm’s growth exploded after that decision. Smart clients are staying away from lawyers that use GenAi– and they’re winning!

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