38
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
Hi TCPAWorld!
The debate continues! Another decision on “texts-versus-calls” comes out of the Northern District of California. In Ronald Cupp v. TA Fintech, Inc., Judge Thomas S. Hixson held that a text message is a “call” for TCPA purposes.
Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), the TCPA prohibits any person making a call (other than in emergency instances) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice without the prior express consent of the called party.
In Ronald Cupp v. TA Fintech, Inc., Plaintiff alleged that Defendant sent over 105 unsolicited text messages and telephone calls. In determining whether Plaintiff had a claim under the TCPA, the court considered if Plaintiff showed all three elements of the following three-factor test established in Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC: “(1) the defendant called a cellular telephone number; (2) using an automatic telephone dialing system; (3) without the recipient’s prior express consent.”
The first factor of this test is where the court briskly discussed if “texts are calls” under the TCPA. Citing just two cases, the court found that the first element of the test was adequately pled by Plaintiff alleging he had received over 105 texts and calls from Defendant. The court cited Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., in which the Ninth Circuit held that a text message is a “call” for purposes of the TCPA. Further, the court cited Wilson v. MEDVIDI Inc., another recent Northern District of California case that concluded “a ‘telephone call’ as used in 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) encompasses the types of text messages Plaintiff complains of.”
We certainly have not seen the last of this issue. If you haven’t been keeping up, district courts across the country have been battling on the issue of “texts-versus-calls.”
If you are new to the debate, the Czar of TCPAWorld recently provided readers with a scoreboard and visual map showing the outcomes on the issue:
LATEST SMS SCOREBOARD: Get Ready for Law Conference of Champions With the Complete Set of TCPA DNC SMS Rulings At your Fingertips.
Want to dig deeper into these decisions? Read our previous blogs to catch up on how courts across the country are split on the issue:
This article was authored by Victoria Lalande
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 !
Hi TCPAWorld!
The debate continues! Another decision on “texts-versus-calls” comes out of the Northern District of California. In Ronald Cupp v. TA Fintech, Inc., Judge Thomas S. Hixson held that a text message is a “call” for TCPA purposes.
Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), the TCPA prohibits any person making a call (other than in emergency instances) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice without the prior express consent of the called party.
In Ronald Cupp v. TA Fintech, Inc., Plaintiff alleged that Defendant sent over 105 unsolicited text messages and telephone calls. In determining whether Plaintiff had a claim under the TCPA, the court considered if Plaintiff showed all three elements of the following three-factor test established in Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC: “(1) the defendant called a cellular telephone number; (2) using an automatic telephone dialing system; (3) without the recipient’s prior express consent.”
The first factor of this test is where the court briskly discussed if “texts are calls” under the TCPA. Citing just two cases, the court found that the first element of the test was adequately pled by Plaintiff alleging he had received over 105 texts and calls from Defendant. The court cited Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., in which the Ninth Circuit held that a text message is a “call” for purposes of the TCPA. Further, the court cited Wilson v. MEDVIDI Inc., another recent Northern District of California case that concluded “a ‘telephone call’ as used in 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) encompasses the types of text messages Plaintiff complains of.”
We certainly have not seen the last of this issue. If you haven’t been keeping up, district courts across the country have been battling on the issue of “texts-versus-calls.”
If you are new to the debate, the Czar of TCPAWorld recently provided readers with a scoreboard and visual map showing the outcomes on the issue:
LATEST SMS SCOREBOARD: Get Ready for Law Conference of Champions With the Complete Set of TCPA DNC SMS Rulings At your Fingertips.
Want to dig deeper into these decisions? Read our previous blogs to catch up on how courts across the country are split on the issue:
This article was authored by Victoria Lalande
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