21
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
On June 17, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Brown-Daub Chevrolet of Nazareth’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) National Do Not Call Registry (DNCR) provisions. In Pero v. Brown-Daub Chevrolet of Nazareth (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2026), the court considered whether a text message is a “telephone call” under Section 227(c) of the TCPA, and concluded that it is.
The TCPA restricts certain telemarketing communications and, through Section 227(c), provides a private right of action to a person who receives more than one prohibited telephone call within a 12-month period. The plaintiff alleged that she registered her number on the DNCR in 2021, gave the dealership her number in October 2024 to receive truck sales information, later opted out of texts, and then received six unwanted texts between January 8 and March 28, 2025.
The court’s analysis is notable in the current environment. The Supreme Court recognized that Chevron deference has been abolished and that courts must exercise independent judgment rather than defer automatically to agency interpretations. At the same time, it emphasized that agency interpretations may still deserve respect as the product of “a body of experience and informed judgment,” particularly where Congress delegated implementation authority to the FCC.
Turning to the statutory text, the court focused on Section 227(a)(4), which defines “telephone solicitation” as the initiation of a “telephone call or message” for telemarketing purposes. Although texts did not exist when Congress enacted the TCPA, the court found that Congress “intended to prohibit more than solicitations by telephone” because it also used the phrase “by message.” Applying ordinary meaning, the court concluded that a text message is “a communication (message) transmitted by a telephone,” and therefore falls within the statute.
The court also gave “considerable weight” to the FCC’s interpretation and noted the FCC’s 2024 clarification that DNCR protections extend to text messages. Considering the statutory language, FCC rules, and the “overwhelming majority of courts,” the court held that texts are calls under Section 227(c). For companies using SMS campaigns, they should treat texts to DNCR-listed numbers as regulated telemarketing contacts, confirm the required consent, and make opt-outs durable across systems and personnel. The decision also suggests that post-Loper Bright challenges to FCC TCPA interpretations may face headwinds where the agency’s position aligns with statutory text and the weight of judicial authority.
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 !
On June 17, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Brown-Daub Chevrolet of Nazareth’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) National Do Not Call Registry (DNCR) provisions. In Pero v. Brown-Daub Chevrolet of Nazareth (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2026), the court considered whether a text message is a “telephone call” under Section 227(c) of the TCPA, and concluded that it is.
The TCPA restricts certain telemarketing communications and, through Section 227(c), provides a private right of action to a person who receives more than one prohibited telephone call within a 12-month period. The plaintiff alleged that she registered her number on the DNCR in 2021, gave the dealership her number in October 2024 to receive truck sales information, later opted out of texts, and then received six unwanted texts between January 8 and March 28, 2025.
The court’s analysis is notable in the current environment. The Supreme Court recognized that Chevron deference has been abolished and that courts must exercise independent judgment rather than defer automatically to agency interpretations. At the same time, it emphasized that agency interpretations may still deserve respect as the product of “a body of experience and informed judgment,” particularly where Congress delegated implementation authority to the FCC.
Turning to the statutory text, the court focused on Section 227(a)(4), which defines “telephone solicitation” as the initiation of a “telephone call or message” for telemarketing purposes. Although texts did not exist when Congress enacted the TCPA, the court found that Congress “intended to prohibit more than solicitations by telephone” because it also used the phrase “by message.” Applying ordinary meaning, the court concluded that a text message is “a communication (message) transmitted by a telephone,” and therefore falls within the statute.
The court also gave “considerable weight” to the FCC’s interpretation and noted the FCC’s 2024 clarification that DNCR protections extend to text messages. Considering the statutory language, FCC rules, and the “overwhelming majority of courts,” the court held that texts are calls under Section 227(c). For companies using SMS campaigns, they should treat texts to DNCR-listed numbers as regulated telemarketing contacts, confirm the required consent, and make opt-outs durable across systems and personnel. The decision also suggests that post-Loper Bright challenges to FCC TCPA interpretations may face headwinds where the agency’s position aligns with statutory text and the weight of judicial authority.
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