A Do Not Call lawsuit needs more than one sales call to a registered number from the same company within a year, with no exception that applies. That leaves a business several ways to answer it: an established business relationship, signed written permission, the regulatory safe harbor for companies with real procedures, a separate statutory defense, and, for texts, a 2026 appellate ruling. The calls that are hardest to defend are repeated ones after a customer asked the company to stop.
What a plaintiff has to show
The private claim comes from 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) and belongs to someone who received “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity” in violation of the Do Not Call rules. Damages are up to $500 per violation, and up to $1,500 if a court finds the violation willful or knowing.
The underlying rule, at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2), bars telephone solicitations to residential subscribers on the National Do Not Call Registry. A telephone solicitation is a call or message meant to encourage a purchase, rental, or investment. Calls that don’t include a sales pitch fall outside it. The FTC’s Do Not Call FAQs list political, charitable, debt collection, informational, and survey calls as allowed, with the caveat: “But these calls can’t also include a sales pitch.”
Be careful about how narrowly you read “sales call.” The Ninth Circuit revived a Do Not Call case in Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer after concluding that “one purpose for which Defendants initiated these messages was to encourage the purchase of real estate brokerage services. That is enough to satisfy the statutory definition.” Courts look at why the call was made, and the script is only part of that.
The exceptions that defeat most Registry claims
An established business relationship. A purchase or transaction within the past 18 months, or an inquiry within the past three, takes calls outside the Registry rule, under the definition in § 64.1200(f)(5). It ends when the customer asks the company to stop.
Signed written permission. The rule sets a specific standard: “Such permission must be evidenced by a signed, written agreement between the consumer and seller which states that the consumer agrees to be contacted by this seller and includes the telephone number to which the calls may be placed,” under § 64.1200(c)(2). Electronic signatures count. Lead-form consents get litigated over whether they meet this bar, and the Eleventh Circuit’s vacatur of the FCC’s one-seller-at-a-time rule in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC removed one obstacle for companies buying leads. For companies that buy leads, our post on consent records for purchased leads covers what that permission should look like.
Business lines. The Registry protects residential subscribers, and the FTC states in its Do Not Call FAQs that “Business phone numbers and fax lines are not covered.” Whether a cell phone used for both purposes counts as residential is a factual fight worth having. Our post on TCPA claims over business phone numbers covers that question in more detail.
The safe harbor and the statutory defense
A company with real Do Not Call procedures has two layers of protection for mistakes.
The regulatory safe harbor in § 64.1200(c)(2)(i) covers violations that result from error when the company has written procedures, trained personnel, a record of do-not-call requests, and a process that uses “a version of the national do-not-call registry obtained from the administrator of the registry no more than 31 days prior to the date any call is made,” per the rule. The FTC tells consumers “it can take up to 31 days for sales calls to stop” after they register, which matches that window.
The statute adds its own defense: “It shall be an affirmative defense in any action brought under this paragraph that the defendant has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection,” under § 227(c)(5).
Both defenses depend on paperwork that exists before the claim, which is why I’d prefer to defend a company with a two-page written Do Not Call policy and monthly scrub records than one with better technology and no documents.
Texts, cell phones, and the 2026 rulings
Texts may fall outside the private claim altogether. The Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that texts aren’t “telephone calls” under § 227(c)(5). A Virginia federal court went further in October 2026, writing in Lowrey v. Twilio that “Section 227(c) does not apply to cellphones, only residential lines.” Neither ruling binds California courts, and the Ninth Circuit hasn’t addressed either question, so both are live arguments for a California defendant.
One caution on Lowrey’s cell-phone holding: California’s own Do Not Call statute protects “residential or wireless telephone subscribers” by name, under Business and Professions Code § 17590, so a state-law claim doesn’t depend on it.
Defenses at a glance
| Defense | Where it comes from | What it requires |
|---|---|---|
| Fewer than two violating calls in 12 months | 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) | Call records showing the count |
| Not a telephone solicitation | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(15) | Calls with no sales purpose, judged by why they were made |
| Established business relationship | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(5) | A purchase within 18 months or an inquiry within three, and no stop request |
| Signed written permission | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii) | A signed agreement naming the seller and the number |
| Safe harbor for errors | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(i) | Written procedures, training, request records, scrubs no older than 31 days |
| Reasonable-procedures defense | 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) | Practices implemented with due care |
| Texts are not calls | Steidinger (7th Cir. 2026) | Text-only claims, though not binding in California |
When a Do Not Call claim arrives
- Place a litigation hold on the dialer and texting records for the number, including each call’s time stamp and the campaign it belonged to.
- Pull the internal do-not-call list entries and opt-out records for the number, with dates.
- Pull the Registry scrub logs and the version date of the Registry file used for each campaign.
- Gather the written Do Not Call policy, training records, consent records, and lead-source contracts.
- Talk to a lawyer before responding to the demand, contacting the claimant, or offering anything.
The firm’s TCPA defense lawyers page summarizes how claims involving Do Not Call Registry violations are defended.
Do Not Call defense questions
How often do we have to scrub against the Registry?
Often enough that the version you use is never more than 31 days old when a call is made. That’s the safe-harbor standard. Many companies scrub weekly or before each campaign, which keeps them inside the window with room to spare and produces records that prove it.
Does the Do Not Call rule cover our calls to existing customers?
Not while an established business relationship exists: a purchase or transaction within 18 months, or an inquiry within three. The relationship ends if the customer asks you to stop calling. After that, sales calls to a registered number are outside the exception, even if the customer keeps buying from you.
Is the FTC’s $50,120 fine what we’d pay a plaintiff?
No. The FTC’s figure is a civil penalty the government can seek. A private plaintiff’s claim is up to $500 per violation under the TCPA, and up to $1,500 if a court finds the violation willful or knowing. The government and private exposure are separate.
Do political or charity calls count?
Not under the Do Not Call rules, as long as they don’t include a sales pitch. Recorded-voice and autodialer rules still apply to those calls, though, so a charity robocalling cell phones needs consent like anyone else, subject to narrow exceptions.
Defending Do Not Call claims
If your company has been sued over calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, its scrubbing procedures and customer records can supply real defenses. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving Do Not Call Registry violations. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S.C. § 227. The FCC’s Do Not Call rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as published in the eCFR through October 6, 2026. The FTC’s guidance is its National Do Not Call Registry FAQs. The court decisions are Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer, LLC, No. 25-4066 (9th Cir. June 4, 2026); Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025); Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026); and Lowrey v. Twilio, Inc., No. 6:25-cv-00116 (W.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2026).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of October 6, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.