Now more than ever, businesses face increasing uncertainty due to the rise in private actions under consumer protection laws, particularly the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Understanding the latest TCPA developments is crucial for companies seeking to navigate compliance and mitigate legal risks.
According to WebRecon, there were 2,788 complaints filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in 2024 alone, reflecting a substantial 66.6% increase from the number of filings in 2023. By May 31, 2025, WebRecon reported that TCPA lawsuits had surged further, reflecting a nearly 40% increase in filings compared to the same time period last year.
Rising Tide: The Surge in TCPA Litigation
When Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991, the Act served as a means to restrict the growing number of telephone solicitation calls placed to residential telephone subscribers. Congress determined such restrictions were essential to combat the "pervasive ... use of cost-effective telemarketing strategies" that it deemed a "nuisance and an invasion of privacy" in addition to preventing the "risk to public safety" posed if emergency service lines were tied up with telemarketing calls.1 In its findings, Congress determined that the proliferation of telemarketing calls to American consumers was an escalating issue that the TCPA was designed to curtail.
However, in an effort to balance commercial freedom of speech individual privacy, the Act placed specific restrictions on telemarketing communications. The first significant restriction the Act placed on telemarketing calls was the ability of telemarketers to use an "automated telephone dialing system" ( ATDS) to initiate calls to residential phone numbers containing pre-recorded messages.2 This restriction, as well as the later adopted Do-Not-Call (DNC) provision, are the only subsections of the TCPA which create a private right of action that allows consumers to recover $500 for each call made in violation of either provision, and trebled damages up to $1,500 if the call was made willfully.3
Given the strict liability nature of the statute and the large number of calls and texts that may be sent in a single campaign, the potential liability in these actions escalates quickly. As a former chairman of the FCC once stated, "it's no surprise the TCPA has become the poster child for lawsuit abuse, with the number of TCPA cases filed each year skyrocketing from 14 in 2008 to 1,908 in the first nine months of 2014."4
Anticipating that technological advancements may outpace legislative reform, Congress empowered the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish 'reasonable restrictions' that align with the TCPA's objectives.5 Numerous FCC regulations and declaratory rulings have contributed to the implementation and application of the TCPA. Pursuant to its authority under the TCPA, the FCC has adopted rules: (1) implementing and enforcing a national Do-Not-Call (DNC) registry,6 (2) establishing rules requiring companies to create and maintain internal DNC lists7, and, most recently, (3) clarifying what constitutes a "per se reasonable means to revoke consent" under the TCPA.
However, in a recent decision upending the FCC's authority to create standardized telemarketing rules, the U.S. Supreme Court held that district courts hearing enforcement proceedings are not bound by the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA.8 Citing its opinion in Loper Bright and reaffirming the need for independent judicial review using statutory interpretation principles, the Court further curtailed agency deference on June 20, 2025 when it delivered its majority opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. 9
The majority's opinion suggests that the FCC may not unilaterally draft and implement TCPA regulations that expand the scope of TCPA liability, or create a private right of action where Congress did not intend one. It is therefore more important than ever for businesses to understand developments in this area to avoid liability for novel TCPA claims.
The Dobronski Decision and Misleading Caller ID Claims
One example is the onslaught of nearly identical complaints attempting to create a private right of action for so-called TCPA caller ID violations.10 These copycat complaints claim violations of C.F.R. § 64.1601(e)(1) – the FCC's regulation of caller identification information – are "enforceable under the private right of action provided for under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)'s private right of action."11 The trend appears to have been set off by one recent outlier decision in Michigan, Dobronski v. Selectquote Ins. Servs.12
In Dobronski, the court departed from the prevailing consensus that there exists no private right of action under § 64.1601(e). However, businesses facing similar caller ID claims under the TCPA need not accept the validity of such claims. Most courts agree that the caller ID regulation – § 64.1601(e) – cannot be enforced in civil actions by consumers, because the statute was not promulgated pursuant to either of these subsections.13 Failing to develop the reasoning underlying the majority approach, the Michigan court accepted, without any challenge, the assertion that "§ 227(e)(3) is quickly eliminated as the statutory basis for the promulgation of § 64.1601(e) because the TCPA was amended to include § 227(e) only years after the FCC promulgated § 64.1601(e)."14
The misguided reasoning in Dobronski highlights the importance of leveraging statutory interpretation principles to defeat TCPA claims. First, a consumer must base their TCPA claim on one of two private rights of action: (1) the ATDS provision, codified in § 227(b)(3), or (2) the DNC provision, codified in § 227(c)(5). Therefore, regulations that are not promulgated under one of these two subsections cannot be enforced in civil actions by consumers.
Defending TCPA Claims After Dobronski and McKesson
Dobronski and McKesson introduce new challenges as courts reassess the FCC's TCPA regulations. It is therefore crucial for businesses to remain aware of the evolving law in TCPA civil enforcement actions to distinguish between legitimate and baseless TCPA claims as litigation continues to rise.
Buchanan's consumer defense team helps clients navigate TCPA regulations and administrative rulings, as well as defend our clients in individual and putative class action TCPA cases.
Footnotes
1. Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 227 (1991)).
2. 42 U.S.C. § 227(b).
3. See § 227(b)(3), (c)(5).
4. In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, WC Docket No. 07-135
5. Id.
6. The national DNC registry was created in coordination with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Various laws and regulations establish the basis for the FCC's facilitation of the national DNC registry. See generally 16 C.F.R. § 310.4 (FTC regulation relating to abusive telemarketing acts or practices); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6151-6155 (the "Do Not Call Implementation Act"); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108 (the "Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act").
7. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200
8. McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. ----, 145 S. Ct. 2006 (2025).
9. Id. ("In an enforcement proceeding, a district court must independently determine for itself whether the agency's interpretation of a statute is correct. District courts are not bound by the agency's interpretation, but instead must determine the meaning of the law under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency's interpretation.") (citing Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U. S. 369, 402 (2024)).
10. Bronstin v. Palmetto Solar, LLC, Docket No. 3:25-cv-00426, ECF 1 ¶¶ 13-15 (W.D.N.C Jun 18, 2025); Weingrad v. Franchise Creator, LLC, Docket No. 1:25-cv-22746, ECF 1 ¶¶ 13-15 (S.D. Fla. Jun 17, 2025); Hudson-Bryant v. Wilshire Law Firm PLC, Docket No. 4:25-cv-00510, ECF 1 ¶¶ 15-17 (N.D. Tex. May 01, 2025); Novia v. Mobiz Inc. et al, Docket No. 1:25-cv-11036, ECF 1 ¶¶ 14-16 (D. Mass. Apr 19, 2025).
11. See e.g. supra fn. 10.
12. Dobronski v. Selectquote Ins. Servs., 773 F. Supp. 3d 373 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2025).
13. Dobronski, 773 F.Supp.3d at 375.
14. Id. at 376 (citing Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-331, 124 Stat. 3572 (2010)) (emphasis in original).
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.
