by Traverse Legal, reviewed by Enrico Schaefer - October 2, 2026 - Class Action Attorneys
You defend it on four fronts: standing, arbitration, whether a text is a “call,” and class certification. Winning any one early can narrow the case or end it. The first 30 days after service decide how many of those options you still have.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, lets a recipient recover $500 per violation, and up to three times that if the court finds the violation willful or knowing. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), (c)(5). A putative class of 10,000 people who each received one call is a $5 million claim at the statutory minimum and $15 million if trebled. That arithmetic is why plaintiffs file these cases and why some defendants settle cases they should have fought.
Michigan federal courts sit in the Sixth Circuit, which has issued several TCPA decisions in the last three years. Some help defendants. Some do not. Both kinds are below.
Most start with a complaint about unwanted telemarketing calls or texts: prerecorded or artificial-voice calls to cell phones, or calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. The plaintiff then defines a class of everyone who received the same calls. A search of federal dockets found at least 25 TCPA cases filed in the Eastern District of Michigan and at least 8 in the Western District since January 1, 2025.
That count comes from CourtListener’s RECAP archive, which does not capture every filing, so the real number is higher.
Two statutory theories account for most of these cases. Section 227(b) bars calls to cell phones using an artificial or prerecorded voice, or an autodialer, without prior express consent. Section 227(c)(5) gives a private right of action to anyone who receives more than one call in 12 months from the same company after registering on the Do Not Call Registry. After Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), narrowed the definition of an autodialer, plaintiffs moved toward prerecorded-voice and do-not-call theories.
The defendant is often not the company that dialed. Plaintiffs sue the business whose products were sold, on the theory that it is liable for calls placed by a marketing vendor or lead generator acting for it. See Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016) (vicarious liability under the TCPA).
Usually yes, which makes standing a narrower defense in Michigan than in some circuits. The Sixth Circuit held in Dickson v. Direct Energy, LP, 69 F.4th 338 (6th Cir. 2023), that a single ringless voicemail is a concrete injury, and in Ward v. NPAS, Inc., 63 F.4th 576 (6th Cir. 2023), that a single unwanted call can be one.
Standing still helps at the margins. Under TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), every class member must have standing to recover damages, so a class definition that sweeps in people who were never called, or never received the message, invites a challenge.
But a motion to dismiss for lack of injury rarely ends a TCPA case here. The larger levers are consent, arbitration and the class definition.
For do-not-call claims, the Seventh Circuit says no. In Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), the court held that texts are not “calls” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), so a do-not-call suit based on marketing texts cannot proceed. We have found no Sixth Circuit decision on the question, which leaves Michigan district judges to decide it.
The argument became available because of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025). The Supreme Court held that district courts are not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA and must read the statute themselves. Two district courts have since read “telephone call” as it was understood in 1991: Radvansky v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (N.D. Ga. Feb. 17, 2026) and James v. Smarter Contact, Inc. (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2026).
The argument has limits. Steidinger addressed the do-not-call provision. Claims under § 227(b) rest on different statutory text, and the Ninth Circuit has treated texts as calls under that section since Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009). A circuit split is possible. Do not assume Steidinger covers every text claim.
If the complaint is built on marketing texts to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, raise the argument in the first response. Do not wait for summary judgment.
Often, if the plaintiff agreed to terms online. In Dahdah v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, 166 F.4th 556 (6th Cir. 2026), the Sixth Circuit reversed an order from the Eastern District of Michigan that had denied arbitration. It held that clicking through a website’s hybrid terms formed a binding arbitration agreement and that the arbitrator, not the court, decides arbitrability.
An arbitration clause with a class waiver ends the class action. The plaintiff is left with an individual claim in arbitration. That is the best outcome available on the pleadings, and it is available only to a defendant who can prove the agreement.
Proof is a day-one task. Pull the consent logs, the terms as they read on the date of consent, and screenshots of the page as the consumer saw it. If the consent came through a lead generator, get the records from the lead generator now, before the contract’s notice period or the vendor’s retention policy runs. Read the clause’s fee provisions before you invoke it. A wave of individual arbitrations can cost more than one class action.
Consent drives the fight. In Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc., 863 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. 2017), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of certification because individual questions of consent would predominate. The defendant there had produced hundreds of thousands of consent forms that would have to be cross-checked against more than 53,000 putative class members. The court distinguished Bridging Communities, Inc. v. Top Flite Financial, Inc., 843 F.3d 1119 (6th Cir. 2016), where the defendant had only raised the possibility of consent.
The rule that emerges is about evidence. A possible consent defense, standing alone, does not defeat predominance. Concrete consent records that require recipient-by-recipient review do.
In re Humana, Inc., No. 25-0502 (6th Cir. Dec. 30, 2025), shows the other side. The court declined an immediate Rule 23(f) appeal from a Western District of Kentucky order certifying a prerecorded-call class. It acknowledged that Humana raised “valid concerns that individual issues regarding consent may ultimately overwhelm the common issues,” noted that the district court would revisit certification if they did, and observed that whether consent can be shown class-wide is fact-specific. The district court could identify class members from the defendant’s own records and use affidavits, and the Sixth Circuit found no abuse of discretion on the fail-safe class argument because the definition excluded account holders and was not framed only in terms of lack of consent.
Two practical points follow. Do not count on a quick appeal to fix an adverse certification order; build the consent record before the motion is briefed. And look hard at the class definition. If the defendant’s own records can identify who was called and whether they consented, expect certification. If no records can, the defense is stronger.
In the Eastern District of Michigan, a lawyer who is not a member of the State Bar of Michigan must name local counsel with an office in the district, and pro hac vice admission is not permitted. E.D. Mich. LR 83.20(c)(1), (f)(1). Local counsel must attend each scheduled appearance unless the court excuses it. LR 83.20(f)(2).
For an out-of-state firm, choosing local counsel is a decision about who actually stands in front of the judge. Local counsel in a TCPA class action handles the filings that must be made locally, attends the hearings and scheduling conferences, and tells lead counsel how the assigned judge handles motions to dismiss, class discovery and certification. Some companies prefer the reverse arrangement: a Michigan firm as lead defense counsel, with the company’s national counsel in a supporting role. Traverse has an office in the Eastern District, is admitted in the Eastern and Western Districts and the Sixth Circuit, and has handled TCPA defense matters in federal court in Michigan. We take either role, and we cover Western District cases from our Detroit office.
If you are choosing between firms, ask four questions. Has the firm appeared before the assigned judge. Does it have TCPA class experience, not just individual consumer cases. Can it staff a hearing on short notice. And does it have a conflict with the plaintiffs’ firm or the vendor involved. A firm that cannot answer those in the first call is not ready for a 21-day response deadline.
The statute sets damages at $500 per violation, trebled if the violation was willful or knowing. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), (c)(5). The total is the number of class members times the number of violations each received. A class of 10,000 people with one call each is $5 million at the minimum and $15 million trebled.
Yes. Plaintiffs plead vicarious liability against the business whose products or services were promoted. The Supreme Court recognized that theory in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016). Vendor contracts, indemnity rights and the vendor’s call records decide how much of the exposure you can shift.
In the Eastern District of Michigan, a lawyer who is not a member of the State Bar of Michigan must name local counsel with an office in the district, and pro hac vice admission is not permitted. E.D. Mich. LR 83.20. Check the local rules of the Western District before you file there.
No. Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services (7th Cir. July 14, 2026) binds courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Michigan judges may follow its reasoning, and the argument is available to raise in any do-not-call text case, but no Sixth Circuit decision has adopted it.
📚 Get AI-powered insights from this content:
As a founding partner of Traverse Legal, PLC, he has more than thirty years of experience as an attorney for both established companies and emerging start-ups. His extensive experience includes navigating technology law matters and complex litigation throughout the United States.
We’re here to field your questions and concerns. If you are a company able to pay a reasonable legal fee each month, please contact us today.
This page has been written, edited, and reviewed by a team of legal writers following our comprehensive editorial guidelines. This page was approved by attorney Enrico Schaefer, who has more than 20 years of legal experience as a practicing Business, IP, and Technology Law litigation attorney.
