By: Jeffrey Backman, Esq., Roy Taub, Esq., and Jacob Mars, Esq.
A pair of promotional text messages has sparked a TCPA class action, with a Pennsylvania federal court ruling that text messages can trigger liability under the statute’s do-not-call and caller identification provisions.
On October 21, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in Dovberg v. Haller Enterprises, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-4286, 2026 WL 3152723 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2026), allowing two Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claims to proceed. Plaintiff Marvin Dovberg alleged that Defendant Haller Enterprises, Inc. (“Haller”) sent him two unsolicited promotional text messages encouraging him to refer friends and family in exchange for rewards of up to $250. Although Mr. Dovberg had previously used Haller’s services, he alleged that he had not done so since 2022 and had not authorized further communications.
Dovberg brought a putative class action alleging violations of the TCPA’s National Do Not Call (“DNC”) Registry requirements and caller identification regulations. Haller sought judgment on the pleadings, advancing three principal arguments.
First, Haller argued that Section 227(c)(5)’s private right of action applies only to telephone calls, not text messages. The Court disagreed, concluding that the term “telephone call” encompasses text messages under Section 227(c). Relying on statutory language, FCC interpretations, and decisions from other federal courts, the Court emphasized that texting constitutes a method of communicating by telephone.
Second, Haller argued that Mr. Dovberg’s cellphone did not qualify as a “residential” telephone under the TCPA’s Do Not Call provisions. The Court rejected this argument as well, finding that cellphones used for personal, residential, or household purposes may qualify for DNC protection. Mr. Dovberg’s allegations concerning his personal cellphone use and DNC registration were sufficient at the pleading stage.
Perhaps most notably, the Court addressed whether alleged violations of the FCC’s caller identification requirements under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(e) support a private right of action under Section 227(c)(5). Acknowledging a division among federal courts, the Court concluded that such violations are actionable under Section 227(c)(5).
Although Haller identified itself within the text messages, the caller identification information displayed only “Middletown, PA,” rather than Haller’s name. The Court determined that identifying the sender within the message itself did not necessarily satisfy the applicable caller ID requirements because the recipient had to open the message to identify its source.
The decision adds to a growing body of federal case law addressing the TCPA’s application to text messages, cellphones, and caller identification requirements. While the Court did not determine whether Haller ultimately violated the TCPA, its ruling permits both claims to proceed and highlights an ongoing judicial disagreement concerning the scope of private enforcement under Section 227(c)(5).
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.
