By: Jeffrey Backman, Esq. and Roy Taub, Esq.
Generally speaking, the TCPA prohibits the use of “any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement.” A question that has arisen in disputes over “efaxes” and internet and cloud-based faxing is whether transmissions delivered to online fax services are sent “to a telephone facsimile machine,” as that term is defined by statute. A series of rulings from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in Astro Companies LLC v. Westfax Inc. are the latest decisions answering that question in the negative.
The February 12, 2025 Dismissal: Online Fax Services Are Not “Telephone Facsimile Machines”
In an order issued February 12, 2025, the court dismissed Astro Companies’ TCPA claim with prejudice, holding that, based on the statutory text, online fax services do not qualify as “telephone facsimile machines.” The court emphasized that while a prohibited fax can be sent from a “telephone facsimile machine,” a “computer,” or “other device,” the statute allows receipt only by a “telephone facsimile machine,” and the statutorily defined term contemplates a machine that receives and prints faxes over a regular telephone line, not a service that stores or forwards them. Although the court grounded its ruling in the statute’s plain text, it also found the FCC’s Amerifactors and Ryerson declaratory rulings persuasive because online fax services function like email, allowing recipients to manage messages without automatic printing and avoiding the specific harms the TCPA targeted.
The February 9, 2026 Denial of Reconsideration: No Clear Error; Statutory Holding Stands
Astro Companies moved for reconsideration, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction, improperly relied on FCC rulings, and erred in statutory interpretation. In a ruling issued February 9, 2026, the court denied the motion. In doing so, the court clarified it did not treat the FCC’s rulings in Amerifactors or Ryerson as binding and instead based its decision entirely on the statutory language, citing those rulings only as persuasive support. The court further confirmed that it had jurisdiction to interpret the TCPA in this enforcement context, noting that district courts must determine statutory meaning under ordinary interpretive principles and are not bound by agency interpretations under the Hobbs Act. Because Astro Companies had identified no intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error causing manifest injustice, reconsideration was denied.
Key Reasoning Across Both Orders
The answer to this question is in the text of the statute itself. The TCPA restricts the transmission of faxes to a “telephone facsimile machine,” a term that is specifically and clearly defined as equipment that transcribes to or from paper over a regular telephone line. Simply put, an online storage-and-forwarding service does not meet this definition and does not cause any recognized harm to the recipient, which in the case of an online fax service, is nothing more than a service provider. Online fax services allow their users – perhaps the ultimate intended recipients – to avoid automatic printing and cost shifting, undermining the TCPA’s junk-fax harm rationale. The FCC’s analyses on these points were persuasive, but these conclusions followed from the plain meaning of the statutory text.
Click here to sign up to receive Greenspoon Marder’s TCPA blog and stay informed on the latest developments and insights.
