By: Jeffrey Backman, Esq., Roy Taub, Esq., and Jacob Mars, Esq.
The Eastern District of Missouri recently dismissed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) action after concluding that the statute’s private right of action for violations of the Do-Not-Call provisions does not extend to cellular telephone subscribers. Koeller v. OX AppSec Security, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-0641-MTS, 2026 WL 2935851 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 30, 2026).
Section 227(c) authorizes the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to establish regulations protecting the privacy rights of “residential telephone subscribers” from telephone solicitations and provides a private right of action for violations of those regulations. In 2003, the FCC interpreted “residential telephone subscriber” to include wireless/cellular telephone subscribers who placed their numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.
The court examined that interpretation in light of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which rejected Chevron deference and stresses that courts must independently determine the meaning of statutes. The court concluded that “residential telephone subscriber” in the statute refers to subscribers of telephone services connected to a residence. The court emphasized that, when Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991, residential telephones and cellular telephones were treated as distinct categories. The court further noted that Congress expressly referred to cellular telephone services elsewhere in Section 227, but did not use similar language in Section 227(c), further supporting the finding that cellular telephones are not within the meaning of “residential telephone subscriber.”
The court acknowledged that the FCC and numerous courts have treated wireless subscribers as residential subscribers for purposes of Section 227(c), but concluded the FCC did not have the power to expand the private right of action beyond what Congress authorized, which the court found did not extend to cellular telephone subscribers.
Because Koeller alleged that the calls were made to his cell phone, rather than a residential telephone line, he had not stated a cognizable claim for relief under Section 227(c)(5). The court therefore granted OX’s motion to dismiss Koeller’s complaint.
The decision adds to recent district court decisions examining the scope of the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call provisions following Loper Bright. No federal court of appeals has yet resolved whether Section 227(c)(5) encompasses wireless subscribers.
This publication is provided by Greenspoon Marder LLP is issued for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as general legal advice nor a solicitation of any type. Please contact the author(s) or your Greenspoon Marder LLP contact if you have any questions regarding the currency of this information. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision. Before you decide, ask for written information about the lawyer’s legal qualifications and experience.
