[author: Eric Troutman]
Received an email from Andrew Perrong this morning entitled: “Prepare for the onslaught of 64.1601 claims.”
Attached was this case: Caller ID Claim
He wasn’t kidding.
This is a complete disaster.
In Newell v. JR Capital, 2:25-cv-01419-GAM (E.D. Pa. July 16 , 2025) the court expanded Dobronski’s big recent win against Selectquote holding a marketer must identify itself on a caller ID if the service is available.
The Court went on to hold the requirement applies o SMS messages.
To get there the court determined 47 CFR § 64.1601(e) was promulgated under 227(c) authority– so a private right of action exists. Here is the conclusion reached by the court:
In sum, the administrative history unequivocally demonstrates that caller ID is a network technology, assessed by the FCC as one available method to protect residential telephone subscribers’ privacy rights under § 227(c). See Dobronski v. Selectquote Ins. Servs., No. 23-12597, 2025 WL 900439, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2025) (“The agency record thus suggests that caller ID requirements are a telephone network technology or other alternative that the FCC required in an attempt to help consumers enforce their privacy rights against telemarketers. That places § 64.1601(e) in the heartland of § 227(c).”).
A dude without a lawyer beat a #biglaw firm and now the rest of us have to deal with the consequences.
And, no surprise, the law firm Perrong just whipped in Newell? Also a #biglaw firm.
Sigh.
Hire big law. Expect a big loss.
It gets worse though. Much much worse.
The Court also determined the caller ID requirement applies to text messages:
Finally, the meaning of technical terms used within subsection (e) also show that (e) applies to text messages. Under § 64.1601(e), “[a]ny person or entity that engages in telemarketing . . . must transmit caller identification information.” Caller identification information is defined as “information provided by a caller identification service regarding the telephone number of, or other information regarding the origination of, a call made using a voice service or a text message sent using a text messaging service.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1600(c) (emphasis added).17 Therefore, § 64.1601(e) specifically covers text messages.
Hmmm.
Notably the texts at issue DID provide a correct phone number and several even included a link to the sender’s website. But the texts did not submit caller ID information. So the court allowed the claim to proceed.
This is a HUGE deal though.
We told you this was coming back in April:
CRITICAL COMPLIANCE ALERT: TCPA Caller ID Rules Pose Massive Risk to Marketers
Troutman Amin, LLP is putting out a critical compliance alert for all direct-to-consumer and business-to-business marketing and lead generation companies. A court has recently determined all B2B, B2C and D2C marketers must display their full name–or the name of the seller– when contacting consumers, provided a carrier offers that service. Additionally the caller must display … Continue reading
Key take aways:
- Never hire #biglaw to defend you in a TCPA class action (Except Squire and Skadden);
- These caller ID cases are now very VERY real. Take it seriously;
- Yes, you need to submit Caller ID information with text messages sent for marketing purposes.
More soon.
[View source.]
