A U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied a motion to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claim, holding that cell phone users who use their phones for personal purposes are “residential subscribers” entitled to TCPA protections.
Cell Phones Covered as “Residential Subscriber” Lines
Defendant argued that the TCPA’s protections for “residential subscribers” do not extend to cell phone users, contending that the statute was intended to protect only landline users. The court rejected this argument, finding that the term “residential subscriber” refers to the nature of the subscriber’s use (personal or residential) rather than the technology (landline vs. cell phone). The court emphasized that the TCPA’s purpose is to protect residential privacy, regardless of the type of phone used.
the Court notes that, before the Supreme Court’s decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. __, 145 S. Ct. 2006 (2025), this question was well-settled. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a report and order holding that cell phone users are “residential subscribers” under the meaning of the TCPA. In re Rules & Reguls. Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 18 F.C.C. Rcd. 14014, 14038–39 (2003). For decades, courts accepted the FCC’s order as binding, regularly rejecting arguments that cell phones fell outside the scope of the TCPA’sprotections. See, e.g., Radvansky v. Kendo Holdings, Inc., 744 F. Supp. 3d 1314, 1319 (N.D. Ga. 2024) (holding that the FCC’s final order was not reviewable, given the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of the Hobbs Act). However, in McLaughlin, the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not preclude district courts from disagreeing with the FCC’s interpretations of the TCPA. McLaughlin, 145 S. Ct. at 2018–19. Thus, in light of McLaughlin, this Court must independently—and without deference to the FCC’s decision—evaluate Defendant’s argument that the term “residential subscriber” excludes cell phone users.
…
The Court agrees with Plaintiff. A “subscriber” is a “person who makes a regular payment in return for … access to a commercially provided service.” Subscriber, Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.oed.com (2025). The term “residential” modifies “subscribers,” meaning that the TCPA applies to a certain type of phone subscriber rather than to a particular type of phone technology. The ordinary definition of “residence” is the “act or fact of living in a given place for some time.” Residence, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). Thus, applying the ordinary definition of “residential” to the term “subscriber,” a “residential subscriber” is a person who maintains a phone for the purposes of their private residence rather than for commercial or business purposes. In other words, a residential subscriber is a person who uses their phone for activities associated with their private, domestic life.
Sufficient Allegations of Direct and Vicarious Liability
The court found that the plaintiff’s complaint adequately alleged both direct and vicarious liability. Plaintiff claimed that defendant either sent the text messages directly or exercised sufficient control over agents who sent the messages on its behalf. At the motion to dismiss stage, it is enough for a plaintiff to allege facts supporting either theory.
Internal Do-Not-Call Procedures
The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant failed to maintain proper internal do-not-call procedures. The court held that plaintiff’s allegations—that he requested to be placed on the internal do-not-call list and continued to receive messages—were sufficient to state a claim. The court clarified that a plaintiff need not specifically allege that they requested a copy of the internal do-not-call policy at the pleading stage.
SHAWN ISAACS, Plaintiff, v. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, Defendant., No. 3:24-CV-00216-LMM, 2025 WL 2268359 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 7, 2025).
