This December 2025 edition of Telephone and Texting Compliance News provides insights and news related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

A recent TCPA case in the Ninth Circuit, Dilanyan v. Hugo Boss, raises a critical question: Is a text message a “telephone call”? Learn how this decision could impact class actions and defense strategies.

This Litigation Update explores TCPA decisions in Fluker v. Ally Financial, Inc., where the Sixth Circuit held high call volume alone is not enough for TCPA claims, and McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., where the Central District of Illinois held text messages do not trigger internal and national Do Not Call claims.

This edition covers comments filed by industry stakeholders in response to FCC’s rulemaking proceeding regarding shoring up US telecom networks against unlawful robocalls, and looks at TCPA decisions on call volume and Do Not Call claims in Fluker v. Ally Financial, Inc. and McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp.

Read about two Petitions for Declaratory Ruling filed with the FCC, which seek clarity on current TCPA consent rules concerning telephone solicitations during “quiet hours” and robocalling rules for utility companies, and a Seventh Circuit holding that communications encouraging a plaintiff to use services that were free to him were not “telephone solicitations” under the definition of the TCPA.

Read about the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Hulce v. Zipongo, which held that a defendant’s communications encouraging a plaintiff to use services that were free to him were not “telephone solicitations” under the definition of the TCPA.

Read about FCC compliance rules concerning consumer requests to revoke consent for calls and texts under the TCPA, FCC Enforcement Bureau actions aimed at stopping the transmission of illegal robocall traffic over gateway provider Identidad Advertising Development LLC’s network, and a pending Supreme Court case that raises the issue of whether the Hobbs Act required a district court to accept the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA as it pertains to faxes received by email. 

Read about McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, a pending Supreme Court case that raises the issue of whether the Hobbs Act required a district court to accept the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA as it pertains to faxes received by email. 

In a win for Defendant IQVIA, Inc., accused of allegedly sending faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Plaintiff Brian J. Lyngaas D.D.S.’s (Lyngaas) motion for class certification, agreeing with IQVIA that the class did not cross the Third Circuit’s threshold ascertainability requirement.