World421_AP_02

We received a complaint from Barbara Smith who alleges that SLL sent eleven text messages to a cell phone number that she had placed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and provided to her eighty-five year old mother. Her mother opted-in to receive automated promotional messages through a webform after clicking on an advertisement.

Can you review all analogous cases to the issue and determine whether SLL can be held liable for sending these text messages? Please briefly explain your conclusion...

It is likely that SLL will be held liable for sending the text messages to Barbara Smith. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and relevant case law are clear that consent must be obtained from the "called party" and that text messages are “calls” for the purposes of the TCPA, so the National Do-Not-Call Registry is engaged. Because SLL sent text messages to Barbara Smith's cell phone number without her consent, and with the knowledge that the number was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, SLL can be held liable for violating the TCPA under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

Upon reviewing the analogous cases, the three most applicable cases to the facts at hand are:
(1) Hall v. Smosh Dot Com Inc. No. 22-16216 (9th Cir. June 30, 2023). In this case, a mother placed her thirteen year-old son's phone on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. 72 F. 4th 983, 985 (9th Cir. 2023). The son later consented to receive marketing text messages from Smosh Dot Com, and received up to five texts before consent was revoked by the mother. Id. at 986. The court held that the "owner and subscriber of a phone with a number listed on the Do-Not-Call Registry has suffered an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing when unsolicited telemarketing calls or texts are sent to the number in alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act... the owner and subscriber of the phone suffers a concrete, de facto injury when their right to be free from such communications is violated, even if the communications are intended for or solicited by another individual, and even if someone else is using the phone at the time the messages are transmitted." Id. 
(2) Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc. In this case, a mother, at her minor son’s request, signed the son’s phone up for a free ringtone which required her to consent to receive marketing text messages from the company Nextones and its affiliates to her cell phone. Simon & Schuster, Inc. received Satterfield’s number from Nextones and sent promotional texts. The court held that a text message is a "call" under the TCPA. 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009). The facts are analogous and applicable as this case gives rise to issues of consent when a third party is involved as well as confirms that texts are "calls" for the purposes of the TCPA. 
(3) Wilson v. Skopos Financial, LLC (D. Or. July 21, 2025). In this case, the court held that text messages are “calls” for § 227(c)(5) purposes and therefore fully covered by the National Do-Not-Call Registry (“The Court concludes that unsolicited text messages sent in violation of the DNC Registry can give rise to a cause of action under § 227(c)(5).”). This is directly relevant to Mrs. Smith’s case as the TCPA violations in question were text messages, not calls, which further means that the Do-Not-Call Registry was still engaged.