18
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
A magistrate judge in New York refused to stay discovery recently in a DNC TCPA SMS class action finding the issue of whether text are calls is still very much alive in the state.
In Bachhuber v. Secure Investing Advisors, 2026 WL 3016412 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2026) the defendant asked a magistrate judge to stay discovery pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss and to otherwise limit or bifurcate discovery.
Given the strength of the SMS is not calls argument around the nation right now this was a pretty valid request. But the court said no: Defendant argues that the overwhelming consensus outside of this Circuit is that Plaintiff’s claim under Section 227(c)(5) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act does not cover text message communications, as is alleged to have occurred here. However, at least one court in this District recently addressed the issue and held otherwise. See Wilson v. Better Mortgage Corp., 2025 WL 3493815, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2025) (concluding for purposes of a motion to dismiss that Section 227(c)(5) applies to text messages)
Get it?
Although the trend of recent cases definitely suggests SMS are not calls, red jurisdictions–i.e. those where the Troutman Amin, LLP map shows negative decisions on the issue have already been handed down– are likely to stay red pending appellate review.
So that means the split of authority may remain even as new jurisdictions to weigh the issue continue to break toward the “green” side of the spectrum.
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 magistrate judge in New York refused to stay discovery recently in a DNC TCPA SMS class action finding the issue of whether text are calls is still very much alive in the state.
In Bachhuber v. Secure Investing Advisors, 2026 WL 3016412 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2026) the defendant asked a magistrate judge to stay discovery pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss and to otherwise limit or bifurcate discovery.
Given the strength of the SMS is not calls argument around the nation right now this was a pretty valid request. But the court said no: Defendant argues that the overwhelming consensus outside of this Circuit is that Plaintiff’s claim under Section 227(c)(5) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act does not cover text message communications, as is alleged to have occurred here. However, at least one court in this District recently addressed the issue and held otherwise. See Wilson v. Better Mortgage Corp., 2025 WL 3493815, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2025) (concluding for purposes of a motion to dismiss that Section 227(c)(5) applies to text messages)
Get it?
Although the trend of recent cases definitely suggests SMS are not calls, red jurisdictions–i.e. those where the Troutman Amin, LLP map shows negative decisions on the issue have already been handed down– are likely to stay red pending appellate review.
So that means the split of authority may remain even as new jurisdictions to weigh the issue continue to break toward the “green” side of the spectrum.
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