48
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
In recent months, businesses across various industries have been hit with a wave of lawsuits targeting alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (“TCPA”) call time rules. Plaintiffs are increasingly claiming that text messages, often sent just minutes outside the allowable hours, violate the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC”) rules and entitle them to substantial compensation. These lawsuits are creating challenges for businesses that rely on telemarketing and short message service (“SMS”) programs, even when they have received prior consent from their customers.
Understanding the TCPA’s Statutory and Regulatory Framework
The TCPA, enacted in 1991, was designed to protect consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls. Over time, its reach has expanded to cover text messages, making businesses that engage in text message marketing campaigns subject to compliance. One key area of regulation is the TCPA’s call time rules, found in the Do-Not-Call (“DNC”) regulations issued by the FCC. These rules prohibit telephone solicitations to residential subscribers before 8:00 AM or after 9:00 PM local time at the called party’s location.
Under the TCPA, a “telephone solicitation” is defined as a call or message made for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services. Importantly, the statute and regulations carve out several exceptions, including for calls or messages made to individuals who have given prior express consent to be contacted.
The penalties for violating the TCPA can be severe. Violations can result in statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per call or message, depending on whether the violation was willful. These potential damages create significant exposure for businesses that rely on telemarketing or SMS outreach, particularly when multiple calls or messages are at issue.
Recent Wave of Lawsuits and Why the Claims Are Unmeritorious
Despite the FCC’s long-standing guidance and the clear statutory language regarding consent, plaintiffs have increasingly filed lawsuits alleging that text messages sent outside the 8:00 AM – 9:00 PM window violate the TCPA’s call time restrictions. Many of these lawsuits focus on minor deviations from the permissible time window, such as texts sent just minutes before 8:00 AM or shortly after 9:00 PM.
What makes these lawsuits particularly problematic is that in many cases, the plaintiffs had previously opted into the SMS programs and expressly consented to receive marketing messages. Under the plain language of the TCPA and FCC regulations, such consent removes the text message from the definition of a “telephone solicitation” and, by extension, exempts it from the call time restrictions. This means that businesses with valid consent should not be subject to these lawsuits.
However, plaintiffs are exploiting the uncertainty created by the lack of clear FCC guidance on whether the call time rules apply to text messages where consent has been provided. They argue that, regardless of consent, any text message sent outside the permissible hours violates the TCPA, leaving businesses vulnerable to litigation and potential class action exposure.
The FCC Petition for Declaratory Ruling
In response to this growing litigation trend, an industry group recently filed a petition with the FCC, seeking a declaratory ruling that the TCPA’s call time restrictions do not apply to text messages sent to individuals who have given prior express consent. The petition highlights the plain language of the statute and regulations, arguing that consent should exempt businesses from the call time rules and shield them from the growing number of predatory lawsuits.
The petition also requests clarification or waiver of the rule requiring knowledge of the recipient’s location for compliance, arguing that current standards are unworkable and lead to abusive litigation practices. The petitioners emphasize that the TCPA’s unique combination of strict liability, statutory damages, and private right of action make it ripe for lawsuit abuse, with opportunistic litigators targeting legitimate businesses.
While this petition represents a positive step towards clarifying the law, the FCC’s rulemaking process can be lengthy. In the meantime, businesses must continue to operate in a landscape where uncertainty about the applicability of the call time rules remains. It could be months, if not longer, before the FCC issues a ruling, and during this time, we expect plaintiffs’ attorneys to continue targeting businesses with TCPA lawsuits.
Recommendations for Reducing Risk
Until the FCC provides clear guidance on the issue, businesses should take proactive steps to mitigate the risk of being targeted by TCPA quiet hour lawsuits. Here are several recommendations to help ensure compliance and reduce exposure:
Conclusion
The recent surge in TCPA lawsuits alleging violations of the call time restrictions highlights the need for businesses to stay informed and proactive in their compliance efforts. While we believe that many of these lawsuits are unmeritorious, businesses should still remain cautious. By observing the 8:00 AM – 9:00 PM call time window, reviewing consent mechanisms, and implementing strong compliance procedures, businesses can reduce their risk of being targeted by predatory lawsuits.
We will continue to monitor litigation in the courts and the FCC’s response to the pending petition, and provide updates as new developments arise. In the meantime, please reach out if you have any questions or need assistance in reviewing your telemarketing and SMS programs to ensure compliance with the TCPA.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2025 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
In recent months, businesses across various industries have been hit with a wave of lawsuits targeting alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (“TCPA”) call time rules. Plaintiffs are increasingly claiming that text messages, often sent just minutes outside the allowable hours, violate the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC”) rules and entitle them to substantial compensation. These lawsuits are creating challenges for businesses that rely on telemarketing and short message service (“SMS”) programs, even when they have received prior consent from their customers.
Understanding the TCPA’s Statutory and Regulatory Framework
The TCPA, enacted in 1991, was designed to protect consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls. Over time, its reach has expanded to cover text messages, making businesses that engage in text message marketing campaigns subject to compliance. One key area of regulation is the TCPA’s call time rules, found in the Do-Not-Call (“DNC”) regulations issued by the FCC. These rules prohibit telephone solicitations to residential subscribers before 8:00 AM or after 9:00 PM local time at the called party’s location.
Under the TCPA, a “telephone solicitation” is defined as a call or message made for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services. Importantly, the statute and regulations carve out several exceptions, including for calls or messages made to individuals who have given prior express consent to be contacted.
The penalties for violating the TCPA can be severe. Violations can result in statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per call or message, depending on whether the violation was willful. These potential damages create significant exposure for businesses that rely on telemarketing or SMS outreach, particularly when multiple calls or messages are at issue.
Recent Wave of Lawsuits and Why the Claims Are Unmeritorious
Despite the FCC’s long-standing guidance and the clear statutory language regarding consent, plaintiffs have increasingly filed lawsuits alleging that text messages sent outside the 8:00 AM – 9:00 PM window violate the TCPA’s call time restrictions. Many of these lawsuits focus on minor deviations from the permissible time window, such as texts sent just minutes before 8:00 AM or shortly after 9:00 PM.
What makes these lawsuits particularly problematic is that in many cases, the plaintiffs had previously opted into the SMS programs and expressly consented to receive marketing messages. Under the plain language of the TCPA and FCC regulations, such consent removes the text message from the definition of a “telephone solicitation” and, by extension, exempts it from the call time restrictions. This means that businesses with valid consent should not be subject to these lawsuits.
However, plaintiffs are exploiting the uncertainty created by the lack of clear FCC guidance on whether the call time rules apply to text messages where consent has been provided. They argue that, regardless of consent, any text message sent outside the permissible hours violates the TCPA, leaving businesses vulnerable to litigation and potential class action exposure.
The FCC Petition for Declaratory Ruling
In response to this growing litigation trend, an industry group recently filed a petition with the FCC, seeking a declaratory ruling that the TCPA’s call time restrictions do not apply to text messages sent to individuals who have given prior express consent. The petition highlights the plain language of the statute and regulations, arguing that consent should exempt businesses from the call time rules and shield them from the growing number of predatory lawsuits.
The petition also requests clarification or waiver of the rule requiring knowledge of the recipient’s location for compliance, arguing that current standards are unworkable and lead to abusive litigation practices. The petitioners emphasize that the TCPA’s unique combination of strict liability, statutory damages, and private right of action make it ripe for lawsuit abuse, with opportunistic litigators targeting legitimate businesses.
While this petition represents a positive step towards clarifying the law, the FCC’s rulemaking process can be lengthy. In the meantime, businesses must continue to operate in a landscape where uncertainty about the applicability of the call time rules remains. It could be months, if not longer, before the FCC issues a ruling, and during this time, we expect plaintiffs’ attorneys to continue targeting businesses with TCPA lawsuits.
Recommendations for Reducing Risk
Until the FCC provides clear guidance on the issue, businesses should take proactive steps to mitigate the risk of being targeted by TCPA quiet hour lawsuits. Here are several recommendations to help ensure compliance and reduce exposure:
Conclusion
The recent surge in TCPA lawsuits alleging violations of the call time restrictions highlights the need for businesses to stay informed and proactive in their compliance efforts. While we believe that many of these lawsuits are unmeritorious, businesses should still remain cautious. By observing the 8:00 AM – 9:00 PM call time window, reviewing consent mechanisms, and implementing strong compliance procedures, businesses can reduce their risk of being targeted by predatory lawsuits.
We will continue to monitor litigation in the courts and the FCC’s response to the pending petition, and provide updates as new developments arise. In the meantime, please reach out if you have any questions or need assistance in reviewing your telemarketing and SMS programs to ensure compliance with the TCPA.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2025 National Law Forum, LLC