- within Government, Public Sector and Coronavirus (COVID-19) topic(s)
On July 16, 2025, the United District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a noteworthy decision in Newell v. JR Capital, LLC. Among other claims, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending her over five text messages that did not contain caller identification information. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing, among other things, that the TCPA's caller identification information provisions do not apply to text messages.
Newell is noteworthy because Defendant attempted to utilize a relatively unexplored argument to defeat Plaintiff's TCPA caller identification claims. Although the Court ultimately denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in this case, TCPA defendants should continue to explore previously unviable defenses in the wake of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation.
What are the TCPA's Caller Identification Information Requirements?
Congress mandated that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") implement detailed regulations governing telemarketing practices for several reasons. Among these stated reasons was the need to increase transparency and accountability in telemarketing.
The FCC implemented 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(e) in an effort to meet these objectives. This provision requires any person or entity engaging in telemarketing to transmit accurate caller identification information, including:
- Either the calling party number ("CPN") or automatic number identification ("ANI"); and
- The name of the telemarketer or the seller responsible for the call.
The TCPA's caller identification information provisions also prohibit blocking caller ID information. Although, not as common as Do Not Call and autodialer claims, caller identification claims have been a part of the TCPA landscape ever since the statute's enactment.
Why Did the Court Deny Defendant's Motion?
In Newell, the subject text messages included a callback number and a link, but not Defendant's corporate name. Defendant, nevertheless, argued that the Complaint should be dismissed because the TCPA's caller identification provisions only cover telephone calls.
Under CFR § 64.1600(c), TCPA caller identification information includes: 1) a telephone number; or 2) "other information regarding the origination of a call made using a voice service or a text message sent using a text messaging service." The Court concluded that if caller identification information includes text messages, then the rule requiring its inclusion necessarily also applies to text messages. For this, and other reasons, the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and allowed Plaintiff to proceed with her TCPA lawsuit.
What Does the Newell Decision Means for Businesses
In the wake of McLaughlin, more and more district courts are deciding TCPA claims using ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, instead of relying on FCC guidance. This means that a number of defenses that were previously untenable are now worth considering.
Against this backdrop, it is important that businesses consult experienced telemarketing attorneys to explore creative defenses. Over the past several decades, the attorneys at Klein Moynihan Turco have defended countless TCPA claims on behalf of the telemarketing industry.
Related Blog Posts:
Did This Fresh Subway TCPA Litigation Decision Refresh A New Type of Claim?
Florida TCPA Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
New Oklahoma Mini-TCPA Becomes Law
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.
