Check Out The NLR Career Center!!
26
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
Removing the rust from the holidays you all may recall 3 courts have held SMS messages are not covered by the DNC protections of 227(c) but the last 5 cases in a row have come out otherwise– driven mostly by #biglaw firms trying to raise the argument and losing.
Well in Reisman v. Gen Digital 2026 WL 60370 (D. Az. Jan. 8, 2026) the court has not yet ruled on the issue but it denied a motion to stay discovery in a manner suggestive that it disagrees with the defendant’s argument.
In Reisman the defendant allegedly made illegal SMS messages without consent in violation of the DNC rules. The defendant filed a motion for judgment arguing “the private right of action created in the TCPA in section 227(c)(5) does not apply to text messages, and because Plaintiff’s claims are based on receipt of text messages, those claims fail.” It asked the court to stay discovery pending the outcome of that motion.
The court denied the motion to stay because it was not “convinced” that Defendant’s arguments will result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims and therefore “efficiency and judicial economy will be best served by the parties’ participation in the discovery process.”
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 !
Removing the rust from the holidays you all may recall 3 courts have held SMS messages are not covered by the DNC protections of 227(c) but the last 5 cases in a row have come out otherwise– driven mostly by #biglaw firms trying to raise the argument and losing.
Well in Reisman v. Gen Digital 2026 WL 60370 (D. Az. Jan. 8, 2026) the court has not yet ruled on the issue but it denied a motion to stay discovery in a manner suggestive that it disagrees with the defendant’s argument.
In Reisman the defendant allegedly made illegal SMS messages without consent in violation of the DNC rules. The defendant filed a motion for judgment arguing “the private right of action created in the TCPA in section 227(c)(5) does not apply to text messages, and because Plaintiff’s claims are based on receipt of text messages, those claims fail.” It asked the court to stay discovery pending the outcome of that motion.
The court denied the motion to stay because it was not “convinced” that Defendant’s arguments will result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims and therefore “efficiency and judicial economy will be best served by the parties’ participation in the discovery process.”
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