A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri addresses important issues under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case centers on two unsolicited sales calls made by an employee of Cyflare Security, Inc. to a phone number registered on the National Do Not Call Registry and used by the plaintiff for personal residential purposes. The plaintiff sought monetary damages, treble damages, and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a putative class.
Residential vs. Business Phone Lines: A Fact-Intensive Inquiry
Cyflare Security moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff’s phone was not a residential line and thus not protected by the TCPA’s Do Not Call regulations. The company pointed to deposition testimony suggesting the number was used for work and subsidized by the plaintiff’s employer. However, the court declined to consider this evidence at the motion to dismiss stage, emphasizing that only the complaint’s factual allegations are relevant at this point. The court found the plaintiff’s allegations of residential use sufficient to plausibly state a claim under the TCPA, leaving the business-versus-residential question for later factual development.
Treble Damages: Not Subject to Dismissal at Pleading Stage
Cyflare Security sought to dismiss the claim for treble damages, arguing the complaint did not sufficiently allege willful or knowing violations. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that treble damages are a form of relief, not a separate claim subject to dismissal at this stage. The amount and availability of such damages will be determined based on the evidence developed during the case.
Injunctive Relief: Standing Requires Threat of Future Harm
The court granted Cyflare Security’s motion to dismiss on the claim for injunctive relief. The plaintiff’s allegations were limited to past violations and did not demonstrate a real or immediate threat of future unlawful conduct. The court reiterated that standing for injunctive relief requires a showing of likely future harm, not just past wrongs or speculative risks.
EDWARD J. KOELLER v. CYFLARE SECURITY, INC., No. 4:25-CV-00410-MTS, 2025 WL 3280316 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 25, 2025).
