Growth teams usually hear about TCPA cases after the settlement number lands. Two rulings from the past ten days are worth catching earlier, because they speak directly to how campaigns are written and how legal exposure gets sized.
On October 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that texts offering free, insurance-covered products were not “telephone solicitations.” On November 2, the Western District of Washington held that a consumer who opted out of a class settlement cannot lead a new class over the same kind of calls. One is about message content; the other is about how big a lawsuit can get.
Message content: Bravo v. Hygeia Health
In Bravo v. Hygeia Health, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-08900 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2026), the plaintiff sought a default judgment of $1,000 in statutory damages and $565 in costs for two early-morning texts in April 2026. Hygeia had not appeared. The court denied the motion anyway.
The texts offered breast pump accessories covered by the plaintiff’s insurance, at no cost. Under Section 227(c)(5), the do-not-call private claim requires a “telephone solicitation,” which means encouraging a purchase. The court found these texts did not encourage the recipient to buy anything. It leaned on Hulce v. Zipongo Inc., a 2025 Seventh Circuit decision, and gave the plaintiff 14 days to show why the case should survive.
For growth teams, the lesson is about copy discipline. A truly free, no-strings message tied to an existing benefit sits on different legal ground than a promo. The moment the message drives toward a paid product, a discount or an upgrade, that protection likely disappears.
Exposure sizing: Brown v. Citibank
In Brown v. Citibank, N.A., No. 3:25-cv-5119-TL (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2026), the plaintiff alleged at least 46 prerecorded robocalls. She had opted out of a prior class settlement, Head v. Citigroup, then sought to add class claims. The court denied that request, finding the proposed class failed Rule 23 requirements including typicality. She can still pursue her own claims and was allowed to add individual factual allegations.
TCPAWorld summed up the principle: someone who opts out gets the right to go it alone, not to start a rival class. For a business, that matters when budgeting for litigation. A settled class should stay settled, and the residual risk from opt-outs is individual-sized, not class-sized.
How to apply this to your go-to-market motion
- Separate informational and promotional templates. Keep a clear library of service messages that offer value without a sales ask, and review them whenever marketing wants to add a CTA.
- Tag message intent in your send platform. If you ever need to show a court a message was informational, the tag and the template history help make the case.
- Suppress settlement opt-outs permanently. When a class settles, the opt-out list is a ready-made list of people willing to sue you individually. Put them on a do-not-contact list across every channel.
- Don’t assume a default wins for the plaintiff. Hygeia shows judges still test the merits, but responding to every complaint is cheaper than relying on that.
Pre-send screening closes the remaining gap. TCPALitigatorList.com gives marketing and sales teams a way to scrub contact lists against known TCPA litigators and serial plaintiffs before launch, so a growth campaign does not become the next filing in a plaintiff’s portfolio.
The takeaway for growth leaders
Courts are reading TCPA claims closely: what the message actually said, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to represent anyone else. Teams that write clean copy and keep clean suppression lists get the benefit of both.