52
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
When I was young there was a terrible commercial that used to air involving a cartoon owl licking a tootsie roll pop– a sucker with a tootsie roll center that kids used to enjoy in the 90s.
“How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop?” the commercial would ask before the owl impulsively bites the pop with a large crunch leading the announcer to conclude solemnly “The world may never know.”
TCPAWorld’s version of the “the world may never know” inquiry is whether an SMS message that exceeds the 160 character limit counts as two messages or only one.
This can be important for a number of reasons but in TCPA circles it matters most in: i) determining the amount of damages a TCPA defendant might be liable for; and ii) determining (in the instance of a single text message) whether the “more than one” requirement of 227(c) has been triggered.
The issue has been elusive for years, but we may now finally have our answer (spoiler alert: its not good for defendants.)
In Connor v. Servicequick, 2025 WL 2855393 (D. Colo. Oct. 8, 2025) the defendant sent ONE text message to repeat litigator Jay Connor’s phone, allegedly without consent.
The court concluded that because the single text exceeded 160 characters it actually counted as TWO text messages and allowed the Plaintiff’s DNC case to proceed:
The TCPA provides a private right of action for “[a] person who has received more than one telephone call [or text message] within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity,” when that person’s phone number is listed on the DNC registry. 47 U.S.C.A. § 227(c)(5). 3 Here, Plaintiff not only pleads allegations regarding the text contained in each of the two messages, ECF No. 35 at 6 ¶¶ 30, 31, Plaintiff’s allegations are supported by an excerpt from his phone records, which reflect his receipt of two separate messages, id. at 7 ¶ 32. Other courts have relied on billing records in determining the number of contacts plaintiffs received when evaluating TCPA claims. See, e.g., Hinman v. M & M Rental Ctr., Inc., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1156 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (acknowledging that “billing records…provide some information about each job billed” and that “client invoices indicate how many faxes were sent”). While the screenshot of Plaintiff’s phone appears to reflect one continuous message, see ECF No. 38-2, that does not necessarily refute or “utterly contradict[ ]” Plaintiff’s allegation that he received two separate messages, particularly given Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his billing records and the complexities of the background technological processes at work. See Flores v. City of Aurora, No. 1:20 cv-00618-RBJ, 2021 WL 4033117, at *7 (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2021) (citation omitted). At this stage, where Plaintiff is entitled to have his properly alleged facts accepted as true and enjoy all reasonable inferences drawn from those facts, these allegations are sufficient for Plaintiff’s claim to survive. See Est. of Hebert by & through Bourgeois v. Marinelli, No. 1:22-cv-02582-CNS-STV, 2023 WL 4744927, at *12 (D. Colo. July 25, 2023) (denying a motion to dismiss even where it “[was] a close call” that plaintiff “alleged enough factual content” to set forth claim).
Wow.
So there you have it.
A single text message exceeding 160 characters counts as two texts for TCPA purposes–at least according to this court.
Then again, some courts find SMS messages don’t even trigger the TCPA’s DNC rules so who knows what’s what in this crazy TCPAWorld of ours.
Chat soon!
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 !
When I was young there was a terrible commercial that used to air involving a cartoon owl licking a tootsie roll pop– a sucker with a tootsie roll center that kids used to enjoy in the 90s.
“How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop?” the commercial would ask before the owl impulsively bites the pop with a large crunch leading the announcer to conclude solemnly “The world may never know.”
TCPAWorld’s version of the “the world may never know” inquiry is whether an SMS message that exceeds the 160 character limit counts as two messages or only one.
This can be important for a number of reasons but in TCPA circles it matters most in: i) determining the amount of damages a TCPA defendant might be liable for; and ii) determining (in the instance of a single text message) whether the “more than one” requirement of 227(c) has been triggered.
The issue has been elusive for years, but we may now finally have our answer (spoiler alert: its not good for defendants.)
In Connor v. Servicequick, 2025 WL 2855393 (D. Colo. Oct. 8, 2025) the defendant sent ONE text message to repeat litigator Jay Connor’s phone, allegedly without consent.
The court concluded that because the single text exceeded 160 characters it actually counted as TWO text messages and allowed the Plaintiff’s DNC case to proceed:
The TCPA provides a private right of action for “[a] person who has received more than one telephone call [or text message] within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity,” when that person’s phone number is listed on the DNC registry. 47 U.S.C.A. § 227(c)(5). 3 Here, Plaintiff not only pleads allegations regarding the text contained in each of the two messages, ECF No. 35 at 6 ¶¶ 30, 31, Plaintiff’s allegations are supported by an excerpt from his phone records, which reflect his receipt of two separate messages, id. at 7 ¶ 32. Other courts have relied on billing records in determining the number of contacts plaintiffs received when evaluating TCPA claims. See, e.g., Hinman v. M & M Rental Ctr., Inc., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1156 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (acknowledging that “billing records…provide some information about each job billed” and that “client invoices indicate how many faxes were sent”). While the screenshot of Plaintiff’s phone appears to reflect one continuous message, see ECF No. 38-2, that does not necessarily refute or “utterly contradict[ ]” Plaintiff’s allegation that he received two separate messages, particularly given Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his billing records and the complexities of the background technological processes at work. See Flores v. City of Aurora, No. 1:20 cv-00618-RBJ, 2021 WL 4033117, at *7 (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2021) (citation omitted). At this stage, where Plaintiff is entitled to have his properly alleged facts accepted as true and enjoy all reasonable inferences drawn from those facts, these allegations are sufficient for Plaintiff’s claim to survive. See Est. of Hebert by & through Bourgeois v. Marinelli, No. 1:22-cv-02582-CNS-STV, 2023 WL 4744927, at *12 (D. Colo. July 25, 2023) (denying a motion to dismiss even where it “[was] a close call” that plaintiff “alleged enough factual content” to set forth claim).
Wow.
So there you have it.
A single text message exceeding 160 characters counts as two texts for TCPA purposes–at least according to this court.
Then again, some courts find SMS messages don’t even trigger the TCPA’s DNC rules so who knows what’s what in this crazy TCPAWorld of ours.
Chat soon!
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