By: Jeffrey Backman, Esq., Roy Taub, Esq., and Jacob Mars, Esq.
Can a telephone call be both randomly generated and specifically targeted? That question took center stage in Rios v. Credence Resource Management, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-01801, 2026 WL 3168847 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2026), where a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing three Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claims arising from allegedly unauthorized debt collection calls.
Plaintiff Jesus Rios alleged that defendant Credence Resource Management, LLC (“Credence”), a debt collection company, placed four calls to his cellphone between March 25, 2026 and April 3, 2026, without his consent. According to the complaint, each call began with a prerecorded message before connecting him to a representative who addressed him by his full name. Mr. Rios asserted three TCPA violations based on Credence’s alleged use of an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”), use of an artificial prerecorded voice to contact Mr. Rios without prior consent, and calls to a number registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.
The court first addressed Mr. Rios’s ATDS allegations, finding that merely asserting the use of an autodialer was insufficient. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, the court explained that an ATDS must possess the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce telephone numbers.
Notably, Mr. Rios alleged that Credence deliberately targeted him and that its representatives addressed him by name. The court concluded that these allegations undermined his ATDS claim because the calls appeared specifically directed toward him rather than randomly generated. Finding that a call could not be both random and targeted, the court recommended dismissing the ATDS claim without leave to amend.
The court also emphasized an important distinction under the TCPA: prior express consent, rather than prior express written consent, is sufficient for calls that do not involve advertising or telemarketing. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court explained that such consent may be provided orally or in writing. Because Mr. Rios failed to allege that Credence’s calls involved advertising or telemarketing, his allegations concerning the absence of written consent were insufficient without addressing whether he had provided oral consent.
The court also rejected Mr. Rios’s Do Not Call allegations, explaining that calls made solely for debt collection generally fall outside the TCPA’s telephone solicitation restrictions. Nevertheless, the court recommended dismissing both the prerecorded voice and Do Not Call claims with leave to amend, finding that additional factual allegations could potentially cure their deficiencies.
The decision highlights the distinctions between the TCPA’s autodialer, prerecorded voice, and Do Not Call provisions, particularly in the debt collection context. Importantly, the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations remain subject to review by the assigned district judge.
To discuss TCPA compliance or a pending matter, please contact Jeffrey A. Backman, co-chair of the Class Action Defense practice group at [email protected].
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.
