TCPA Lawsuit News: Supreme Court Ruling, One-to-One Consent, Settlements

TCPA lawsuit news in 2025 and 2026 has been dominated by a rapid unwinding of the Federal Communications Commission’s control over the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. A Supreme Court decision in June 2025 freed district courts from FCC interpretations of the statute, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the agency’s one-to-one consent rule days before it was set to take effect, the Fifth Circuit later rejected the FCC’s written-consent requirement altogether, federal courts are openly split on whether unwanted texts violate the Do Not Call Registry, and class action settlements in the $4 million to $21 million range keep closing.

The Supreme Court Cut FCC Interpretations Loose From District Courts

On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court decided McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. in a 6–3 opinion by Justice Kavanaugh. The case started as a narrow fight over whether online fax services fall under the TCPA’s definition of a “telephone facsimile machine,” but the holding reached much further: district courts hearing TCPA enforcement actions are not bound by the FCC’s interpretations of the statute.¹

For years, both sides in TCPA litigation had treated FCC orders as controlling law, on the theory that the Hobbs Act gave courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review agency orders. The majority rejected that framework. It held that the Hobbs Act is “silent” on whether a party may contest an agency’s legal interpretation in a later enforcement proceeding, and that district courts must independently determine the correctness of the agency’s reading using “ordinary principles of statutory interpretation.” Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented.²

The practical effect landed immediately. Issues that had looked settled for a decade or more are open again: whether the TCPA covers text messages, whether the Do Not Call Registry applies to cell phones, what form of consent telemarketers actually need, and how consumers may revoke it.³

The One-to-One Consent Rule Is Dead

The FCC adopted a rule in December 2023 requiring that written consent for telemarketing robocalls be specific to a single seller. It was aimed at what the agency called the “lead generator loophole,” where one filled-out web form could be treated as consent to calls from dozens of companies. The new rule would have required a separate consent for each seller and demanded that the calls be “logically and topically associated” with the interaction that prompted the consent.⁴

It never took effect. On January 24, 2025, three days before its scheduled start, a unanimous Eleventh Circuit panel vacated it in Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited v. FCC. The court held that the TCPA requires only “prior express consent,” and the agency could not add requirements that “impermissibly conflict with the ordinary statutory meaning” of that phrase. Under the common-law definition, a consumer can consent to calls from multiple entities at once, and consent need not be tied to a particular topic.⁵

The FCC did not appeal. On July 14, 2025, it issued an order deleting the vacated rules from the Code of Federal Regulations, with the final rule appearing in the Federal Register on August 29, 2025.⁶ The pre-2023 definition of “prior express written consent,” established in 2012, remains the operative standard.⁷

The Fifth Circuit Says Oral Consent Is Enough

In February 2026, the Fifth Circuit went further in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc. A panel led by Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod held that the TCPA’s requirement of “prior express consent” covers both oral and written consent, and rejected the FCC’s 2012 regulation that required written consent specifically for telemarketing calls.⁸

The court tracked McLaughlin and the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision overruling Chevron deference. Rather than defer to the FCC, it consulted Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines “express consent” as consent “directly given, either viva voce or in writing.” Because the plaintiff had provided his cell phone number to the pest-control company and maintained an ongoing business relationship, the court found he had given sufficient express consent.⁹

The ruling binds only courts within the Fifth Circuit. Telemarketers operating nationally still have to weigh whether other circuits will follow.

Courts Are Split on Whether Texts Count as Do Not Call Violations

One of the biggest fault lines opened by McLaughlin is whether a text message qualifies as a “telephone call” under Section 227(c)(5), the provision behind the National Do Not Call Registry. The FCC’s position has long been that texts count. District courts, no longer bound to agree, are going both ways.

Rulings Holding Texts Are Not Calls

In Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services, LLC, Judge Jonathan Hawley of the Central District of Illinois dismissed TCPA text-message claims, holding that the plain meaning of “telephone call” in 1991, when the TCPA was enacted, could not have included texts because the technology did not yet exist. The court noted that earlier FCC rulings treating texts as calls were issued under Section 227(b), a different provision, and declined to extend them to Section 227(c).¹⁰ Federal courts in the Northern and Middle Districts of Florida reached the same conclusion in Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Sayed v. Naturopathica Holistic Health, Inc., reasoning that Congress distinguished between calls and texts elsewhere in the statute.¹¹

Rulings Holding Texts Are Calls

Other judges have gone the other way. In Mujahid v. Newity, LLC, Judge Alonso in the Northern District of Illinois held that texts qualify as calls under Section 227(c), citing the Supreme Court’s treatment of texts and calls as interchangeable in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez and the statute’s consumer-protection purpose. Courts in the Northern District of California and the District of Colorado reached similar conclusions in Wilson v. MEDVIDI Inc. and Connor v. Servicequick Inc.¹¹

The Jones ruling is on appeal to the Seventh Circuit, and at least one district court has stayed proceedings pending that outcome. Until an appellate court resolves the question, DNC-registry claims based on unwanted texts face very different odds depending on the courthouse.

ATDS Claims Are Still Hard to Bring

The Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid narrowed the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system to equipment that uses a random or sequential number generator. That knocked out a large category of TCPA claims, because most modern marketing platforms dial from pre-loaded contact lists. Courts have continued to enforce the narrow reading. The Second Circuit in Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd. confirmed that a system selecting numbers from a list previously provided by the consumer is not an ATDS.¹² The Third Circuit reached the same result in Perrong v. Montgomery County Democratic Committee, holding that using a number generator merely to decide the order in which to dial from an existing list does not make the system an ATDS.¹³ The Eighth and Ninth Circuits had already closed the door on similar stretches of Duguid in Beal v. Outfield Brew House and Borden v. eFinancial.¹⁴

With ATDS claims largely foreclosed, plaintiffs have shifted to provisions that don’t require an ATDS, including those covering unsolicited fax advertisements and telephone solicitations.¹³

FCC Rules Still on the Books

Not everything from the FCC’s 2024 TCPA Consent Order was struck down. Several provisions took effect on April 11, 2025, including the requirement that callers honor consent revocations made through “any reasonable means.”¹⁵

The “revoke all” provision is the exception. It would require callers to treat an opt-out from one type of message as a revocation for all future robocalls and robotexts from that caller on unrelated matters. Its effective date was pushed first to April 11, 2026, and then again to January 31, 2027. The FCC is running a rulemaking to decide whether to modify or eliminate the requirement entirely.¹⁶

Quiet-hours enforcement is also active. The TCPA prohibits automated promotional messages before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time, with statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per message. Class actions targeting quiet-hours violations continue to be filed, including Pesce v. Cupshe (Case No. 2:25-cv-05042), where the plaintiff alleges the online retailer sent eight promotional texts during prohibited hours.¹⁷

Recent Multimillion-Dollar Settlements

The legal framework may be shifting, but class action payouts keep landing.

Motive Technologies, $21.4 million. In Balboa v. Motive Technologies, Inc. (Case No. 2024-022690-CA-01), the GPS and dashcam manufacturer agreed to settle claims that it sent prerecorded voice messages to consumers’ cell phones. The class covers anyone who received such a call between November 26, 2020, and April 3, 2026. Preliminary approval was granted April 3, 2026, with a final approval hearing set for August 10, 2026.¹⁸
Realogy (Anywhere Real Estate), $20 million. Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp. (Case No. 3:19-cv-03309, N.D. Cal.) alleged that Coldwell Banker-affiliated agents made roughly 700,000 unsolicited calls using autodialing software to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry between 2015 and 2020. About 298,494 people fell into two settlement classes. The court granted final approval on March 18, 2026, with payments of approximately $281 per claim scheduled by June 16, 2026.¹⁹²⁰
PillPack, $6.5 million. Williams v. PillPack LLC (Case No. 19-CV-5282, W.D. Wash.) resolved allegations of unsolicited telemarketing calls. Final approval was granted April 18, 2025.²¹
Wilshire Law Firm, up to $5.975 million. Ryan v. Wilshire Law Firm, P.L.C. (Case No. 2025-022621-CA-01, Fla.) alleged the personal-injury firm sent prerecorded telemarketing messages to prospective clients’ cell phones without prior express written consent. About 52,691 people are covered, spanning calls made between October 10, 2020, and February 18, 2026. Each valid claim pays roughly $75, and the settlement received final approval on May 28, 2026.²²²³
Truist Bank, $4.1 million. Truong v. Truist Bank (Case No. 23-CV-79, W.D.N.C.) involved allegations of robocalls to cell phone numbers about unrelated accounts. Preliminary approval was granted April 30, 2025.²¹

Statutory damages of $500 per violation, with the possibility of trebling to $1,500 for willful conduct, keep the TCPA one of the more potent class action vehicles in consumer litigation.²⁴

What to Watch Next

The Seventh Circuit’s ruling on the Jones v. Blackstone appeal will be the next major marker on whether the Do Not Call Registry protects against text messages. Circuit splits on several other TCPA questions make further Supreme Court intervention plausible. In the meantime, oral consent may suffice for telemarketing in the Fifth Circuit, the one-to-one consent rule is gone nationwide, and the “revoke all” rule is on hold until at least January 2027.²⁵

1
Supreme Court of the United States. McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates Inc v McKesson Corp
2
Steptoe LLP. The Supreme Court Makes Clear That District Courts Are Not Bound by the FCCs Interpretation of the TCPA
3
Amundsen Davis LLC. Hang Up and Try Again: US Supreme Court Ruling Gives New Life to Defenses in TCPA Lawsuits
4
FCC. TCPA Second Report and Order
5
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited v Federal Communications Commission
6
FCC. FCC Removes One-to-One Consent Rule Nullified by Court Decision
7
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. Eleventh Circuit Vacates TCPA 1:1 Consent Rule
8
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Bradford v Sovereign Pest Control of TX Inc
9
Holland & Knight LLP. TCPA Reset: Fifth Circuit Rejects Prior Express Written Consent Rule
10
U.S. District Court, C.D. Illinois. Jones v Blackstone Medical Services LLC
11
King & Spalding LLP. TCPA Class Action Developments
12
TCPA Blog. TCPA Boundaries Drawn: Marketing Text Messages to Known Telephone Numbers Permitted
13
WilmerHale. Year in Review: 2024 TCPA Litigation
14
Roth Jackson. Third Circuit Issues Common-Sense Pro-Defendant Autodialer Rule
15
FCC. TCPA Consent Order Waiver
16
Burr & Forman LLP. The FCC Delays Effective Date of TCPA Revoke-All Rule Until January 31, 2027
17
Top Class Actions. TCPA Quiet Hours Text Message Violations Class Action
18
ClassAction.org. Motive Technologies Settlement Wraps Up Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Robocalls
19
RealogyTCPA.com. Bumpus v Realogy Brokerage Group Settlement
20
National Mortgage Professional. Realogy Settles TCPA Class Action Lawsuit for $20M
21
Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris Class Action Review Mid-Year Settlement Report
22
ClassAction.org. Up to $5.975M Wilshire Law Firm Settlement Ends Class Action Over Allegedly Unlawful Prerecorded Calls
23
ClaimDepot. WLF TCPA Settlement
24
FCC. TCPA Rules
25
ZwillGen. TCPA Plaintiffs Pressure Testing FCC Rules as Courts Split