19
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
Just a beautiful case to report this morning.
In McGonigle v. Pure Green 2026 WL 111338 (S.D. Fl. Jan. 15, 2026) the district court granted the defense motion to stay a TCPA suit involving SMS messages to numbers on the DNC.
A court in the S.D. Fl has already held SMS messages are not calls but this case appears ready to go even further.
Although the court did not yet rule on the merits of a pending motion to dismiss, the court took a “preliminary peek” and found the motion to be at least facially meritorious. The Court categorically rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that Loper Bright required the court to continue to defer to FCC rulings as “filling up the details” in the TCPA’s provisions:
“Determining whether “telephone call” in § 227(c)(5) includes text messages would likely more than double the number of private causes of action authorized by the TCPA. Doubling the scope of the provision is not “filling up the details.” In actuality, § 227(c)(1)(E) may run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine, since there are no delimitations on the discretion it grants the Commission. But we do not need to determine that now. Instead, we merely reject Plaintiff’s request that we use § 227(c)(1)(E) to resurrect Chevron out of the grave. § 227(c)(1)(E) does not require this Court to defer to the Commission’s interpretation of § 227(c)(5). And we remind Plaintiff that “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.” Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 373.”
I have been saying for years 227(c)(1)(E) may violate the delegation rules but no court has ever agreed until this decision.
Now, granted, it is preliminary and not final–again for now this is just a discovery ruling– but the court found it “crystal clear” that the issue of whether an SMS message is a “call” for TCPA purposes would be determined by the court alone without deference to the Commission.
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 ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
Just a beautiful case to report this morning.
In McGonigle v. Pure Green 2026 WL 111338 (S.D. Fl. Jan. 15, 2026) the district court granted the defense motion to stay a TCPA suit involving SMS messages to numbers on the DNC.
A court in the S.D. Fl has already held SMS messages are not calls but this case appears ready to go even further.
Although the court did not yet rule on the merits of a pending motion to dismiss, the court took a “preliminary peek” and found the motion to be at least facially meritorious. The Court categorically rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that Loper Bright required the court to continue to defer to FCC rulings as “filling up the details” in the TCPA’s provisions:
“Determining whether “telephone call” in § 227(c)(5) includes text messages would likely more than double the number of private causes of action authorized by the TCPA. Doubling the scope of the provision is not “filling up the details.” In actuality, § 227(c)(1)(E) may run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine, since there are no delimitations on the discretion it grants the Commission. But we do not need to determine that now. Instead, we merely reject Plaintiff’s request that we use § 227(c)(1)(E) to resurrect Chevron out of the grave. § 227(c)(1)(E) does not require this Court to defer to the Commission’s interpretation of § 227(c)(5). And we remind Plaintiff that “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.” Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 373.”
I have been saying for years 227(c)(1)(E) may violate the delegation rules but no court has ever agreed until this decision.
Now, granted, it is preliminary and not final–again for now this is just a discovery ruling– but the court found it “crystal clear” that the issue of whether an SMS message is a “call” for TCPA purposes would be determined by the court alone without deference to the Commission.
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 ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC