48
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
Imagine you’re a TCPA defendant sued in a TCPA class action because you kept sending marketing messages to consumers who asked for the messages to stop.
That’s a pretty bad spot to be in. Especially when the named Plaintiff received several messages after he specifically asked for messages to stop.
Well in a very thoughtful opinion the Court in Mitchell v. Toyota of Dallas, 2025 WL 3013789 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2025) bailed the defendant out of this dire situation–finding that many of the class members might have reconsented to receive the messages at issue.
In Mitchell the named plaintiff asked for texts to stop and even received confirmation they would. But they did not.
The Plaintiff obtained data showing 16,546 similar text messages were sent to 1,539 customers who also opted out of further messages from TOD.
This is a bad situation– the dealership was facing over $8mm in damages to a class that looked pretty cohesive.
But there was a problem.
Plaintiff’s expert Anya Verkhovskaya did not take into account that many customers reconsented after requesting texts to stop. Some class members made inbound calls and others made visits to the dealership, while others gave consent on third-party platforms such as Kelly Blue Book, Cars.com, or Truecars.com.
In the end the court determined the class was not “cohesive” because so many class members did not have valid claims owing to their reconsent.
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 !
Imagine you’re a TCPA defendant sued in a TCPA class action because you kept sending marketing messages to consumers who asked for the messages to stop.
That’s a pretty bad spot to be in. Especially when the named Plaintiff received several messages after he specifically asked for messages to stop.
Well in a very thoughtful opinion the Court in Mitchell v. Toyota of Dallas, 2025 WL 3013789 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2025) bailed the defendant out of this dire situation–finding that many of the class members might have reconsented to receive the messages at issue.
In Mitchell the named plaintiff asked for texts to stop and even received confirmation they would. But they did not.
The Plaintiff obtained data showing 16,546 similar text messages were sent to 1,539 customers who also opted out of further messages from TOD.
This is a bad situation– the dealership was facing over $8mm in damages to a class that looked pretty cohesive.
But there was a problem.
Plaintiff’s expert Anya Verkhovskaya did not take into account that many customers reconsented after requesting texts to stop. Some class members made inbound calls and others made visits to the dealership, while others gave consent on third-party platforms such as Kelly Blue Book, Cars.com, or Truecars.com.
In the end the court determined the class was not “cohesive” because so many class members did not have valid claims owing to their reconsent.
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