37
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
A court just held a message asking a consumer if they would “May I communicate with you via text” may constitute a solicitation under the TCPA where the context of the message suggests the intent of the message was to sell the consumer a car– and that’s probably the right result.
The line between marketing and informational messaging can sometimes be difficult to determine, but dual purpose calls have long been considered marketing under the TCPA’s restrictions. But what ultimately matters is the purpose of the message– not its content.
In Shafer v. Toyota of Broadman, 2026 WL 2819768 (N.D. Oh. Sept. 21, 2026) a car dealership sent two text messages to a consumer after he had replied stop.
The first message in the chain asked whether the Plaintiff wanted to upgrade to a new car. This was plainly marketing and the court had little trouble determining as much.
That message wasn’t at issue, however. What was at issue were the two messages the dealership sent after the stop. Neither overtly tried to sell him anything:
The car dealership argued these messages were not marketing– and reading them in isolation they aren’t. But in context–i.e. messages sent by a car dealership after previously asking the consumer if they would like to upgrade to a new car– the court determined the messages might serve a “dual purpose” of luring the consumer in to a new car purchase by trying to discuss the purchase of the consumer’s current vehicle.
As such the dealership’s motion to dismiss the case is denied. (Notably the dealership did not raise the “SMS aren’t calls” argument for some reason– so they still may end up winning the case outright.)
This is an important case for folks to keep in mind when putting together outbound campaigns. It really shows how much context and INTENT matter– the words of the message are much less important than the purpose for which the message is sent.
These are very grey areas but Troutman Amin, LLP can help you navigate.
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 ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
A court just held a message asking a consumer if they would “May I communicate with you via text” may constitute a solicitation under the TCPA where the context of the message suggests the intent of the message was to sell the consumer a car– and that’s probably the right result.
The line between marketing and informational messaging can sometimes be difficult to determine, but dual purpose calls have long been considered marketing under the TCPA’s restrictions. But what ultimately matters is the purpose of the message– not its content.
In Shafer v. Toyota of Broadman, 2026 WL 2819768 (N.D. Oh. Sept. 21, 2026) a car dealership sent two text messages to a consumer after he had replied stop.
The first message in the chain asked whether the Plaintiff wanted to upgrade to a new car. This was plainly marketing and the court had little trouble determining as much.
That message wasn’t at issue, however. What was at issue were the two messages the dealership sent after the stop. Neither overtly tried to sell him anything:
The car dealership argued these messages were not marketing– and reading them in isolation they aren’t. But in context–i.e. messages sent by a car dealership after previously asking the consumer if they would like to upgrade to a new car– the court determined the messages might serve a “dual purpose” of luring the consumer in to a new car purchase by trying to discuss the purchase of the consumer’s current vehicle.
As such the dealership’s motion to dismiss the case is denied. (Notably the dealership did not raise the “SMS aren’t calls” argument for some reason– so they still may end up winning the case outright.)
This is an important case for folks to keep in mind when putting together outbound campaigns. It really shows how much context and INTENT matter– the words of the message are much less important than the purpose for which the message is sent.
These are very grey areas but Troutman Amin, LLP can help you navigate.
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 ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC