40
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, in Veronica Bramlett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RES 360 LLC and Peach City Properties LLC, No. 1:25-CV-3312-MLB (N.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2026) recently granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) telephone solicitation claim based on text messages offering to buy the plaintiff’s home.
The complaint alleged that defendants—who offer real estate-related services—sent multiple texts offering to buy the plaintiff’s home and emphasizing a “quick,” “easy,” “hassle-free” transaction, including the ability to close quickly and avoid a public listing. The plaintiff alleged she was on the national do-not-call registry, had no prior relationship with the defendants, had not requested their assistance, and was not interested in selling. The defendants moved to dismiss on the theory that their messages were not telephone solicitations under the TCPA.
The court held the plaintiff plausibly alleged a prohibited purpose because, taking the allegations as true, the defendants’ model was to “take care of all aspects of the transaction” and provide multiple services offered by a real estate agent, charge a fee for those services, and derive profit from that fee. Reading the “hassle-free” and “take the burden off [Plaintiff’s] shoulders” language of the texts in that alleged context, the court found it plausible the texts were intended to encourage the purchase of services and therefore constituted solicitations, even if the texts did not explicitly mention services.
However, the court allowed the claim to proceed only insofar as the plaintiff alleged that the defendants implicitly offered to handle aspects of the transaction in exchange for a fee baked into the home purchase price. The court dismissed other “telephone solicitation” theories, including that the texts were sent to sell other offerings such as loan services, investment opportunities, construction/renovation, conventional brokerage representation, or an option to buy a home from the defendants, because the content of the texts did not support those theories, even considering context and the totality of the allegations.
Bramlett may support a broader point that a marketing text message can be treated as a TCPA telephone solicitation if, in context, it plausibly has the purpose of encouraging the recipient to purchase the sender’s services, even if the message does not explicitly mention those services. Companies sending marketing messages should assess outreach with the expectation that courts may look beyond the face of the message to its context and business model in deciding whether it was sent “for the purpose of encouraging” the purchase of services. On the other hand, plaintiffs may face the burden to prove a clear nexus between the message content and the solicitation theory, and broad theories untethered to what the messages actually say could risk dismissal. Bramlett underscores that how a message reads in context, and not just on what it says expressly, matters.
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 !
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, in Veronica Bramlett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RES 360 LLC and Peach City Properties LLC, No. 1:25-CV-3312-MLB (N.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2026) recently granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) telephone solicitation claim based on text messages offering to buy the plaintiff’s home.
The complaint alleged that defendants—who offer real estate-related services—sent multiple texts offering to buy the plaintiff’s home and emphasizing a “quick,” “easy,” “hassle-free” transaction, including the ability to close quickly and avoid a public listing. The plaintiff alleged she was on the national do-not-call registry, had no prior relationship with the defendants, had not requested their assistance, and was not interested in selling. The defendants moved to dismiss on the theory that their messages were not telephone solicitations under the TCPA.
The court held the plaintiff plausibly alleged a prohibited purpose because, taking the allegations as true, the defendants’ model was to “take care of all aspects of the transaction” and provide multiple services offered by a real estate agent, charge a fee for those services, and derive profit from that fee. Reading the “hassle-free” and “take the burden off [Plaintiff’s] shoulders” language of the texts in that alleged context, the court found it plausible the texts were intended to encourage the purchase of services and therefore constituted solicitations, even if the texts did not explicitly mention services.
However, the court allowed the claim to proceed only insofar as the plaintiff alleged that the defendants implicitly offered to handle aspects of the transaction in exchange for a fee baked into the home purchase price. The court dismissed other “telephone solicitation” theories, including that the texts were sent to sell other offerings such as loan services, investment opportunities, construction/renovation, conventional brokerage representation, or an option to buy a home from the defendants, because the content of the texts did not support those theories, even considering context and the totality of the allegations.
Bramlett may support a broader point that a marketing text message can be treated as a TCPA telephone solicitation if, in context, it plausibly has the purpose of encouraging the recipient to purchase the sender’s services, even if the message does not explicitly mention those services. Companies sending marketing messages should assess outreach with the expectation that courts may look beyond the face of the message to its context and business model in deciding whether it was sent “for the purpose of encouraging” the purchase of services. On the other hand, plaintiffs may face the burden to prove a clear nexus between the message content and the solicitation theory, and broad theories untethered to what the messages actually say could risk dismissal. Bramlett underscores that how a message reads in context, and not just on what it says expressly, matters.
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