[author: Eric Troutman]
Another day, another data point.
In Aussieker v. Aghazadeh, 2025 WL 2021040 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2025) the Court followed the recent decision in Coffey and concluded offers to buy property simply do not trigger the TCPA’s DNC protections. Thus a company may offer to buy a person’s home even if that person has placed their number on the national DNC list.
BUYING ACTIVITY VS. SELLING ACTIVITY: Court Holds Offers to Buy Houses Are NOT Telephone Solicitations– And Of Course They Aren’t (But this is a BIG WIN Regardless)
So just a couple months ago Queenie and I were in D.C. for the big DNC.com TCPA compliance summit. Was a great time. Very memorable and impactful. One of the most interesting panels at the show was one discussing the fine line between telephone solicitations and offers to buy. The Courts have been pretty consistent … Continue reading
The Court’s rationale is straightforward and consistent with the regulatory language:
An offer to buy simply does not fall within the statutory definition of “solicitation” because it is not a communication “for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person ….” See 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(15). Unsolicited offers to buy may indeed be as unwelcome and intrusive as are unsolicited offers of property, goods or services for sale—but Congress addressed only the latter problem in the TCPA. The court lacks the authority to construe the statute more broadly that its language permits in order to address the harm plaintiff seeks to redress.
Again, pretty straightforward.
The Court in Assuiker was moved by the reasoning of the court in Coffey and expressly followed it:
“Indeed, plaintiff’s argument here is exactly the same as the argument made by Coffey: that defendant’s offer to buy plaintiff’s house was really a solicitation for a service from which defendant would ultimately make money. ECF No. 27 at 8. This argument was expressly, and the undersigned believes correctly, rejected by Judge Logan. The undersigned agrees with defendant that the TCPA claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Easy breezy.
So that’s that–another court finds calls made to generate leads for home buyers are not subject to the TCPA.
A couple of words of caution:
- This is not the final word on the subject. Two rulings at the district court level may hold sway in some legal landscapes but not in TCPAWorld, there may be two contrary rulings tomorrow. Until an appellate court weighs in here proceed with caution; and
- Some states have laws that EXPRESSLY cover offers to buy and otherwise prohibit BROADER calls without consent– so be careful.
As always this is not legal advice–always consult a QUALIFIED lawyer before beginning any consumer outreach program. The laws here are strict, complex, and unforgiving!
Chat soon.
[View source.]
