Tag: TCPA

Pennsylvania’s New Telemarketing Law Is Live. Here’s How to Rebuild Your Outbound Playbook for It.

Pennsylvania is a big market for almost any outbound program, and since October 18, 2026, it is a harder one. Senate Bill 992, signed into law on July 20, overhauled the state’s telemarketing law. For growth and revenue teams, the changes touch the levers that drive pipeline: when you can reach people, which channels count, how you capture consent and who carries the risk when an agency or vendor sends the message.

Fewer hours means rebuilding cadences

The legal window for solicitations in Pennsylvania moved from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., with no solicitations on Sundays. That removes the early-morning and evening slots many teams rely on for consumers who work during the day, along with weekend sends that often perform well in e-commerce and home services.

Practically, your Pennsylvania cadence now has fewer slots to work with. Expect to concentrate attempts in late afternoon and early evening before 7, move Sunday SMS promotions to Saturday or Monday, and measure Pennsylvania conversion separately so a drop in contact rates is not mistaken for a creative problem.

SMS and ringless voicemail are now in scope

The law’s definition of telephone solicitation now covers text messages and ringless voicemail. Teams that moved spend into SMS or RVM partly because those channels felt lighter on regulation need to apply the same time windows, consent rules and opt-out handling they use for voice.

Consent capture needs a refresh

Law firm summaries from Kelley Drye and Mac Murray & Shuster say the law shifts to a prior express written consent standard that largely mirrors federal rules, and requires it for robocalls using prerecorded or artificial voice. Electronic signatures count. The law also prohibits unfair or deceptive practices to obtain consent.

For growth teams, that points to a review of lead forms, landing pages and partner lead sources. Consent language should name the phone number, state that the person agrees to marketing calls or texts, and make clear that agreeing is not a condition of purchase. Lead-generation partners that use vague or bundled consent are now a bigger liability in Pennsylvania.

Your vendors’ risk is your risk

SB 992 reaches anyone who “initiates or causes to be initiated” a solicitation. TCPAWorld reads that as extending liability to the company that hired the telemarketer. Brands that outsource outbound to agencies, BPOs or lead buyers should update contracts to require compliance with Pennsylvania’s rules, call-time controls and audit rights, and ask vendors to show their Pennsylvania settings, not just promise them.

The law also bans caller ID spoofing and the use of synthetic or computer-generated messaging to deceive. If your team is testing AI voice for outbound, review scripts and disclosures with counsel before scaling in Pennsylvania.

What it costs to get wrong

Penalties run up to $1,000 per violation, or $3,000 when the person contacted is 60 or older, with enforcement by the Attorney General and district attorneys. Attorney General Dave Sunday’s office has been active on robocalls, including co-leading a bipartisan coalition in July 2026 that urged the FCC to strengthen “Know Your Customer” rules for voice providers.

Protect the pipeline before you send

The fastest way to lose margin on outbound is to fund someone else’s lawsuit. Before Pennsylvania campaigns go out, running lists through TCPALitigatorList.com flags known TCPA litigators, a simple step that keeps your best-performing segments from carrying a hidden legal cost.

The takeaway

Pennsylvania did not ban outbound; it narrowed it. Growth teams that rebuild cadences around the new window, bring SMS and RVM into the same compliance process and tighten vendor contracts can keep the state productive. The rest will find out from a letter.

Sources

One STOP No Longer Kills Every Message: How the FCC’s November 25 Rules Change Lifecycle Marketing

Growth teams have spent two years worrying that one reply would wipe out an entire customer relationship. Under the “revoke all” approach the FCC kept delaying, a customer who texted STOP to a shipping update could have cut off every robotext and robocall from the brand. On November 25, 2026, revised FCC rules take effect that settle much of that question, and the answer is better for lifecycle programs than many expected. It is not a free pass for promotional channels.

The timeline

The FCC adopted the order, together with a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, on September 30, 2026. Federal Register publication on October 26 set the effective date at November 25, which replaces the January 31, 2027 date that had applied to parts of the earlier revocation requirements. FNPRM comments are due November 25, and reply comments December 28.

What it means for your channel mix

The rules separate informational messages from telemarketing, so your go-to-market plan should do the same.

Informational and transactional streams such as order updates, payment reminders, appointment confirmations and fraud alerts now follow a category-specific approach. An opt-out from one category does not automatically end the others. A customer can turn off payment reminders and still get appointment reminders. For subscription businesses, that protects the servicing messages that keep churn and failed payments down.

Marketing and promotional streams keep the broad rule. A revocation made in response to a telemarketing or advertising call or text still covers all future marketing robocalls and robotexts from you. If a customer opts out of a flash-sale text, every SMS promo and prerecorded marketing call to that number has to stop.

That split matters for how you build programs. Teams that mix promotions into “informational” flows, such as an upsell slipped into a delivery notice, risk having the whole message treated as marketing, and then the global opt-out rule applies.

Owning the opt-out experience

The order also lets brands designate exclusive opt-out methods: an in-call voice or key-press option, a reply text using any of seven keywords (stop, quit, end, revoke, opt out, cancel, unsubscribe), or a designated website or phone number. The method must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. If you do this right, you no longer have to process opt-outs that arrive through random channels, such as a comment on a social post or a note to a sales rep.

From a growth view, this is a chance to bring opt-out design into the product. A clear, consistent opt-out path is easier to measure and audit, and it gives you a defensible record if a dispute ever happens.

Plan for what’s coming

The FNPRM is a preview of what might come next. The FCC is asking whether to:

  • Cut the time to honor a revocation from ten business days to seven.
  • Require two-way texting so consumers can always reply with an opt-out.
  • Make category-specific treatment depend on also offering a one-step “revoke all” option.
  • Clarify how separately branded affiliates and divisions are treated.

Any team still running one-way, no-reply short codes for customer messaging should treat the second item as a warning. Multi-brand companies should watch the affiliate question closely, because it will decide whether an opt-out from one brand carries over to its sister brands.

Growth without the lawsuit tax

Every outbound campaign has a lawsuit tax built in, and much of it comes from a small number of people who sue for a living. TCPALitigatorList.com gives growth and RevOps teams a way to screen contact lists against known TCPA litigators before launch, which pairs well with tighter opt-out handling. One protects you from the people who opt out; the other protects you from the people who never meant to opt in.

The takeaway

The November 25 rules reward segmentation. Brands that clearly separate informational from promotional traffic, and that build a clean opt-out path, get to keep more of their customer conversations. Brands that blur the line get the strictest rule applied by default.

Sources

$9.8 Million in Two Texting Settlements: The Growth Playbook Gaps Behind Teleflora and Coast Dental

SMS is one of the highest-converting channels a growth team can run. It is also one of the easiest to get sued over. Two settlements disclosed in October 2026 put a combined price of up to about $9.8 million on two ordinary-looking gaps in texting programs.

The two cases

Teleflora, $6 million. In Carter v. Teleflora LLC (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 2026-012979-CA-01), Teleflora agreed to settle claims that it sent promotional texts to people who never provided their numbers and whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry. The class covers people who received more than one promotional text within 12 months, starting May 9, 2021, on a number registered for at least 30 days. The estimated payout is about $251 per class member. Teleflora denies wrongdoing. The final approval hearing is November 25, 2026.

Coast Dental, up to $3.84 million. In Chaviano v. Coast Dental Services, LLC, filed in Florida in July 2026, Coast Dental agreed to pay up to $3,840,664 over appointment-related texts and calls allegedly sent after consumers replied STOP. The claims were brought under the TCPA and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The class is roughly 24,308 people, each eligible for up to $59 in cash or a toothbrush voucher worth up to $99. The final approval hearing is December 9, 2026.

Gap one: list acquisition without suppression

Teleflora’s fact pattern is a familiar growth move: reach people who are not yet customers. When the number did not come from the person, consent is hard to show, and registry status becomes the whole case. If your acquisition plan includes texting numbers you did not collect yourself, the National DNC Registry check belongs in the pipeline, not in a checklist someone forgets.

Gap two: lifecycle messages that ignore opt-outs

Coast Dental’s fact pattern is subtler. Appointment reminders and scheduling nudges feel like service messages, so they often run on a different system or a different team’s automation. The allegation is that people who opted out kept receiving them. For growth teams, the lesson is that an opt-out has to reach every automation that can send to that number, including retention and re-engagement flows.

Why these become class actions

Both cases are defined by a process, not an individual message. When the same gap affects every recipient, it creates a class. Class sizes in the tens of thousands are normal, and that is how a modest per-person payout becomes a multimillion-dollar fund.

What it costs per contact

A quick way to make this real for leadership: both settlements land at a few hundred dollars or less per class member, but the totals run into the millions because the classes are large. Teleflora’s estimated payout is about $251 per person. Coast Dental’s class is roughly 24,308 people. Multiply a small per-contact risk by a big list and the number gets attention fast. That is the case for spending on suppression before scale, not after.

The growth-safe SMS checklist

  • Document the source and consent for every number in a promotional send.
  • Scrub non-customer numbers against the National DNC Registry before the first message.
  • Route STOP replies to a single suppression list that every sending platform reads.
  • Audit lifecycle and reminder flows, not just campaign blasts.
  • Screen lists for known litigation risk before launch.

That last item is where TCPALitigatorList.com fits into a growth stack. It lets teams check numbers against known TCPA litigators before a campaign goes out, so the contacts most likely to file are removed upstream. It complements consent capture and DNC scrubbing rather than replacing them.

Takeaway

Neither of these settlements came from a novel legal theory. They came from scale meeting a process gap. Growth teams that build suppression and screening into the pipeline can keep texting aggressively without handing plaintiffs a ready-made class.

Sources

When a TCPA Lawsuit Is the Product: What the Human v. Fisher Sanctions Mean for Growth Teams

Growth teams like to think of TCPA risk as a compliance problem: consent language, opt-out handling, calling windows. A ruling out of Missouri is a reminder that part of the risk is something else entirely. Some of the people entering your funnel are not prospects. They are building a lawsuit.

On September 30, 2026, Judge Matthew T. Schelp of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri found that Daniel Human’s TCPA suit against Fisher Investments was brought “in complete bad faith.” The court held Human, his attorney Edwin Butler and Butler Law Group LLC jointly and severally liable for all of the reasonable attorney’s fees Fisher incurred defending the TCPA claims, from the beginning of the litigation (Human v. Fisher Investments, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-01177-MTS).

The setup, as the court described it

The court found that Human provided his number under a fake name to request solicitations, then sued once Fisher called. It called this his “practice” and noted that dozens of earlier defendants had settled similar claims. It also found that Human destroyed his desktop computer two days before a court-ordered inspection and arrived with a decoy laptop, and that his lawyer knew the claims were illegitimate when he took the case.

Fisher must file its fee records by October 22, 2026. Fees for Fisher’s separate fraud counterclaim are excluded from the blanket award.

Why this is a funnel problem

Think about how the lead arrived: a person filled in a request, and the company followed up. From a dashboard, that looks like a healthy inbound conversion. The difference between a buyer and a plaintiff is invisible at the top of the funnel unless you look for it.

That has a few implications for teams that live on lead volume:

  • Lead quality metrics should include legal risk. A source that delivers high contact rates but also delivers repeat litigants is not a good source.
  • Purchased and partner leads deserve the most scrutiny. The further you are from the original form fill, the harder it is to prove consent later.
  • Speed-to-lead has a cost. Calling within seconds is great for conversion. It also means nobody looks at the number before the dialer does.

The settlement math growth teams should know

The detail worth sharing with finance is that dozens of companies settled with the same plaintiff before Fisher fought. That is the rational choice in most cases. Statutory damages under the TCPA run $500 per violation and up to $1,500 if willful or knowing, so a handful of calls can produce a demand that is cheaper to pay than to litigate. Serial filing works because the math works.

Fisher’s result shows what it takes to break that math: litigation running since 2024, a fight over a forensic inspection and a sanctions motion. Most growth-stage companies will never be in a position to do that. They need to avoid the exposure instead.

Build the screen into the stack

The practical answer is to put a check between lead capture and the first touch. TCPALitigatorList.com gives outbound and growth teams a way to scrub numbers against known TCPA litigators and serial filers before they reach the dialer or the SMS platform, so the riskiest contacts never become part of a campaign. It works alongside consent and DNC compliance rather than replacing them.

Pair that with consent capture you can actually prove: the form, the disclosure, the timestamp and the source. If a dispute does come, those records are what let you push back rather than pay.

Takeaway

Human v. Fisher is a rare win against a manufactured TCPA claim. For growth teams, the lesson is not to wait for a court to sort out who is a real prospect. Sort it out at intake, before the first call or text goes out.

Sources

Do-Not-Call Lawsuits Are Shrinking in Some Courts. Here’s How Growth Teams Should Read It.

For growth teams that live on outbound calls and SMS, the TCPA’s do-not-call rules have long been one of the most expensive line items on the risk register. Two federal court decisions handed down in the last week of September 2026 suggest that, in at least some courtrooms, that line item is shrinking. Whether it shrinks for your program depends on where your audience lives and how you run your campaigns.

The two rulings

Internicola v. MortgagePros, LLC (M.D. Fla., Sept. 24, 2026). A federal court in Florida held that the TCPA does not give consumers a private right of action for claims based on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. As reported by TCPAWorld, the court read the statute’s private-right provision, Section 227(c)(5), as covering only regulations the FCC prescribed within the nine-month window Congress set in 1991, which closed on September 20, 1992. The national registry did not exist until 2003. The court also held that texts are not “calls” under the provision.

Koeller v. Ox AppSec Security, Inc. (E.D. Mo., Sept. 30, 2026). A Missouri federal court dismissed DNC claims because, in its view, the TCPA’s do-not-call protections for “residential” subscribers do not reach cellphones. Citing Loper Bright and McLaughlin, the court refused to defer to the FCC’s 2003 interpretation that extended residential protection to cell numbers.

Why this matters for go-to-market

DNC claims are the bread and butter of a lot of TCPA filings because they are easy to plead: a number on the registry, two or more marketing contacts in twelve months, and a demand letter follows. If courts keep narrowing that pathway, the economics of plaintiff-side litigation change, and so does the risk profile of high-volume outbound.

But a GTM leader should read these cases the way they read a single A/B test: interesting, directional, not yet conclusive.

  • Geography is now a variable. TCPAWorld reported on October 5 that California federal courts are still treating SMS as calls for DNC purposes. A text program that is low-risk in one district may be high-risk in another.
  • The rulings are fragile. The Internicola plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration, and neither case is an appellate decision.
  • Other claims fill the gap. The cases did not touch Section 227(b) robocall and autodialer claims, and state laws such as Florida’s FTSA carry their own private rights of action.

How to adjust your playbook

Look closely at the Internicola facts. The consumer had engaged with the company about a refinance, then withdrew consent on July 1, 2025, and allegedly received just over a dozen calls and texts in the following ten days. That is not a DNC-registry problem at its core. It is a lifecycle problem: a lead who said stop kept getting touched by automated cadences.

For growth teams, that points to three practical moves:

  • Wire opt-outs directly into your sequencing tools. A stop request in one channel should pause every channel immediately.
  • Keep registry scrubbing in place. It is cheap insurance against jurisdictions that do not follow these rulings.
  • Segment by risk. Know which states and area codes your lists concentrate in, and match your cadence intensity to the legal environment.

Know your audience before you reach out

Every growth marketer knows that list quality drives results. In outbound, list quality also drives legal exposure. A small group of repeat plaintiffs generates an outsized share of TCPA lawsuits, and they are adept at shifting legal theories when courts close one door. TCPALitigatorList.com gives sales and marketing teams a way to screen lists against known TCPA litigators before a campaign launches, which removes some of the highest-risk contacts without slowing down the pipeline.

The takeaway

Late September brought real wins for businesses defending DNC claims, and they reflect a broader trend of courts reading the TCPA strictly after Loper Bright. Still, the smartest growth teams will bank the good news without changing their fundamentals: clean consent, fast opt-outs and smarter list hygiene remain the best growth hedge against litigation.

Sources

Q1 2026 Set a TCPA Filing Record. Here’s What the Latest Settlements Tell GTM Teams.

The data point that should reframe how every go-to-market team thinks about outbound: more TCPA class actions were filed in the first quarter of 2026 than in any quarter on record. That is the backdrop for a run of settlements finalized this spring — Zales at $7.54 million, Truist Bank at $4.1 million, Everything Breaks at roughly $995,000 — and each one maps to a specific, fixable breakdown in a marketing operation.

Reading the settlements as GTM diagnostics

Zales, $7.54M — a list-sourcing failure. The class covers numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry that received marketing texts anyway. For a GTM team, this is a question of where audiences come from and how they are filtered. If your SMS audiences are built from purchased data, old CRM segments, or event lists that were never scrubbed against the DNC registry, you are assembling a Zales class one campaign at a time.

Truist, $4.1M — a data-quality failure. The bank settled over prerecorded calls that reached the wrong people — numbers that had been reassigned or simply did not belong to the intended customer. For lifecycle and retention programs, this is the reassigned-number problem: phone numbers change hands constantly, and a CRM that never re-verifies them will keep dialing strangers.

Everything Breaks, ~$995K — the same DNC failure, smaller company. The lesson is that none of this scales with brand size. A mid-market outbound program with a stale list carries the same per-message exposure as a national retailer.

Why the filing record changes the calculus

When TCPA filings hit an all-time high, the plaintiffs’ bar is signaling that intake and class-building have become a repeatable, low-friction pipeline. The implication for marketing leaders is that compliance can no longer sit downstream as a legal review after a campaign ships. It has to be designed into the audience-build and campaign-QA stages, where the actual risk is created.

What to operationalize

Make DNC scrubbing a non-negotiable, automated step in every audience build, refreshed on a current cycle rather than from a stale file. Synchronize internal opt-out and do-not-call data across every platform — CRM, ESP, SMS tool, dialer — so a “STOP” in one system suppresses the contact everywhere. Add reassigned-number and phone-validation checks to recurring programs so lifecycle automation is not quietly dialing numbers that changed owners. And keep consent and suppression evidence that your team can produce on demand, because the absence of that proof is what converts an allegation into a settlement fund.

From a go-to-market standpoint, list hygiene belongs in your campaign QA, not in a legal post-mortem. Marketing-ops teams increasingly screen outbound audiences against TCPALitigatorList.com, the most widely used registry of known TCPA litigators and serial plaintiffs, so a single suppression step upstream stops a known filer from turning a routine nurture flow into a class action. Wiring that check into your audience-build process is a small operational change with an outsized risk reduction.

The bottom line

Zales, Truist, and Everything Breaks are not cautionary tales about bad actors. They are cautionary tales about ordinary outbound programs with ungoverned lists. In a record-setting litigation environment, the GTM teams that move compliance upstream — into how audiences are sourced, filtered, and refreshed — are the ones that stay out of the next settlement roundup.

Sources

Top Class Actions — “$7.54M Zales TCPA class action settlement”; Class Action.org and CompliancePoint — Truist Bank $4.1M TCPA settlement coverage; Top Class Actions — “Everything Breaks $995,000 TCPA settlement”; Shipkevich PLLC / CompliancePoint — 2026 TCPA litigation trend data.

test test