TCPA

Subscribe to TCPA via RSS

Effective September 1, 2025, SB 140 significantly expanded Texas’ telephone solicitation statute. SB 140 expressly covers text messages and similar electronic communications and introduced a direct private right of action under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), with exposure to treble damages, mental‑anguish damages, and attorney’s fees. Recently, a case in the Western District of Texas brought by Ecommerce Marketers Alliance (d/b/a Ecommerce Innovation Alliance), Flux Footwear, and Stodge (d/b/a Postscript) against the State of Texas ended with a joint motion to dismiss after the Texas Attorney General clarified that companies who engage in consent‑based text message programs are not subject to the state’s registration and disclosure requirements. Still, SB 140’s new DTPA cause of action increases the cost of missteps and companies should document affirmative consent.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) rose by double digits while litigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) trended slightly down.  Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) saw a modest increase.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all down for the month of August. However, year over year, only FDCPA complaints have decreased, and not by much.

On September 15, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington reversed a lower court’s decision in Aaland v. CRST Home Solutions, LLC (CRST), holding that unsolicited text messages sent to recruit independent contractors qualified as “commercial” messages under the state’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA). The decision vastly expands the scope of the state statute.

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has finalized its rule under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), addressing prior express consent requirements for sellers to send advertisements and telemarketing notices using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial/prerecorded voice. Notably, the one-to-one requirement has been removed.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month of July. Year over year, only FDCPA complaints have decreased, and not by much.

On July 24, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed House Bill 3865 (HB 3865) into law, introducing significant changes to the regulation of telephone solicitations within the state. This new legislation narrows the permissible calling hours, reducing communications during late evening hours by prohibiting calls after 8 p.m., down from the previous 9 p.m. Additionally, the bill expands the definition of telephone solicitations to include text messages.

On July 14, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) secured a court order aimed at halting allegedly deceptive practices against seven companies and three individuals operating the “Accelerated Debt” program. The defendants allegedly contacted consumers through telemarketing calls or in response to calls resulting from their mail and online ads and made false claims about their ability to substantially reduce consumer debts and misleading consumers about fees. The FTC alleged these actions violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Impersonation Rule, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and § 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by making false statements to get consumers’ financial account numbers. The court’s order includes a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and the appointment of a temporary receiver to oversee the defendants’ business operations.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month. Only Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filings were down for May.

WebRecon reports the overall statistics for…

On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. —- — S.Ct. —- 2025 WL 1716136 (2025), addressing whether, under the Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act), 28 U.S.C. §2342, district courts are bound by the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits had held that because the Hobbs Act vests exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of FCC orders in the circuit (appellate) courts, district courts were bound by the FCC’s orders interpreting the TCPA.