TCPA Decision Worth Watching: Court Rejects Weak Call Attribution and Narrows “Solicitation” Theory

A recent decision out of the Northern District of Illinois is worth a look for companies involved in outbound calling or text messaging in the debt relief space. Shipkevich PLLC represented the defendant in this matter.

The case involved a fairly typical TCPA theory. The plaintiff alleged that she received multiple calls despite being on the do-not-call registry, followed by text messages from a debt relief company, and attempted to tie everything together into a single violation. The court rejected that framing and dismissed the complaint at the pleading stage.

The opinion is notable in how it addresses two recurring issues in these cases. On attribution, the complaint failed because there were no actual facts connecting the calls to the defendant. The court was not willing to infer that the same entity made the calls simply because they occurred on the same day or were similar in nature. Conclusory allegations were not enough. The opinion makes clear that a plaintiff needs to tell a coherent story as to who actually made the calls, which is particularly relevant in an environment where multiple vendors and lead sources may be involved.

The court also drew a clear line on what qualifies as a “telephone solicitation.” The text messages at issue were essentially administrative. One confirmed opt-in and provided opt-out instructions, and the other contained basic contact information. The court found that neither rose to the level of encouraging the purchase of services. Not every business-related text is a solicitation, even if it occurs in a commercial context. There needs to be some element of persuasion or encouragement.

The dismissal was without prejudice, and the plaintiff has been given an opportunity to amend, so this is not the end of the case. That said, the court’s reasoning is instructive and will likely be cited in similar cases going forward, particularly on attribution and the scope of what qualifies as a solicitation. We will continue to monitor whether an amended complaint is filed and how the court addresses it.

Share this post