-
1 week ago | 
natlawreview.com | Eric Troutman |Liisa M. Thomas |Kathryn Smith |Lawrence Buckfire
The financial institution fraud exemption has been on the books now since 2015. It permits financial entities to send fraud notifications to cell phones without consent under certain limited circumstances.
-
1 week ago | 
natlawreview.com | Eric Troutman
One of the most unfair rules in American jurisprudence is the one holding individuals personally liable under the TCPA for actions they take as part of their employment. In almost every setting in the law if you do something at work and it turns out to be illegal you cannot be personally sued for that. But under the TCPA, the person that runs the call center, or makes the phone call, or sets up a campaign, or even a CEO can all be sued PERSONALLY for TCPA violations. And it happens all the time.
-
1 week ago | 
natlawreview.com | Eric Troutman
TCPA revocation cases are on the rise, and a closely related type of case– the internal DNC claim– is on the rise along with it. There is a slight difference between the two types of cases, and one which we don’t talk about much on TCPAWorld.com (and that no one else talks about really.)In a revocation case, the Plaintiff is either on the national DNC list or received calls using regulated technology (ATDS/prerecorded voice/artificial voice).
-
2 weeks ago | 
natlawreview.com | Eric Troutman
2025 has been the Year of the TCPA Class Action with filings more than doubling from last year. And for those wondering how fast a TCPA class action can turn up, one need only ask Fashion Nova. Fashion Nova, which Wikipedia calls a “fast fashion retailer”– no idea what that means– was sued in a TCPA class action in Indiana yesterday for messages that were sent less than two weeks prior in late May, 2025!Indeed the complaint alleges illegal messages were sent in June, 2025 as well.
-
2 weeks ago | 
natlawreview.com | Eric Troutman
The TCPA’s ban on “prerecorded or artificial” voice calls has often been applied to prerecorded or artificially-generated voicemails. Remains unclear to me whether that is the proper application of the statute– the TCPA appears to only govern calls made to “deliver a message” in connection with calls to landline and not cell phones– but that is certainly the majority view. What qualifies as sufficient allegations of prerecorded voicemail usage has varied over time, however.
-
2 weeks ago | 
natlawreview.com | Eric Troutman
Well Americans have endured 3 billion more robocalls in 2025 than in 2024 according to YouMail’s famous Robocall Index. The Index reveals Americans received 4,829,181,100 robocalls in May, 2025 as opposed to 4,480,264,800 in May, 2025– an increase of over 400MM calls in a single month. Year to date figures are even worse, with consumers having received 23.7BB robocalls in 2025 compared to ~20BB this same time frame last year. This amounts to an increase of nearly 20% year over year.
-
2 weeks ago | 
natlawreview.com | Eric Troutman
Since 2009 Courts have been applying FCC rulings suggesting that text messages are calls subject to the TCPA even though text messages didn’t exist at the time the TCPA was passed and the statute does not mention text messages in its primary restrictions. With the death of Chevron deference a renewed focus has been put on the issue. Courts have now been freed up to evaluate anew whether text messages really qualify as a “call” under the TCPA.
-
2 weeks ago | 
natlawreview.com | Eric Troutman
TCPA insurance used to be very difficult to come by but slowly carriers are starting to write policies to protect companies from TCPA liability. Most of the policies are low limit high deductible affairs– $1MM is the max that I have seen, and we all know that doesn’t go very far in TCPAWorld. But perhaps it goes far enough, at least in some cases. For instance, in Daughter v. Credit Bureau Services 2025 WL 1618354 (S.D. Tex.
-
2 weeks ago | 
natlawreview.com | Eric Troutman
TCPAWorld has a bunch of little side stories in addition to all the big ones. Here’s a quick one for you. In Adean Hill v. Amity One Tax, 2025 WL 1592957 (N.D. Tex. June 5, 2025) the Court gave Hill one last chance to serve the complaint on the defendant. Backing up, the case has been around for a while and the court had already given Hill until May 29, 2025 to get the complaint served. But that date passed without service.
-
3 weeks ago | 
natlawreview.com | Eric Troutman
The Courts have been pretty consistent that a pure offer to buy a property is not a solicitation, but a an offer to buy tied to a hidden service for which the consumer is charged is a solcitation. This matters because folks really like to cold call property owners in an effort to buy their properties. But folks also really like to cold call FSPOs and expired listings in an effort to list their properties– which is very different. Well in Cofey v. Fast Easy Offer, 2025 WL 1591302 (D.
