Ninth Circuit Lets a Home-Buyer Text TCPA Claim Proceed

An offer to buy a house can become part of a TCPA solicitation case when the alleged purpose includes encouraging the homeowner to purchase brokerage services. The Ninth Circuit’s June 2026 decision discussed below allowed that theory past the pleading stage. It didn’t establish liability. Real estate businesses defending these claims should examine the campaign’s purpose and the proposed transaction, as well as the words in each text.

What did the Ninth Circuit hold at the pleading stage?

In Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer, LLC, No. 25-4066, decided June 4, 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed a dismissal. The court stated: “we hold that Coffey has adequately pleaded that the messages at issue here qualify as telephone solicitations.” Adequately pleading a claim means alleging enough to proceed at that stage, but it doesn’t mean proving those allegations.

Explaining the asserted purpose, the court wrote: “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.” The opinion addressed the allegations before it. A defense still requires attention to what the evidence establishes.

I would read the complaint’s account of the business model before deciding that a short purchase-offer text defeats the claim, because the text can be only the beginning of the transaction alleged in the complaint. If the complaint alleges that the outreach was meant to generate brokerage customers, a response confined to the text’s literal wording may leave the central allegation unanswered.

Why does the purpose of the outreach matter?

The statutory definition focuses on initiation for a particular purpose. 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4) describes a telephone solicitation as a call or message initiated to serve the purpose of “encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services,” subject to stated exclusions. The direction of the proposed payment isn’t the only question when the alleged plan includes selling a separate service. Our post on dual-purpose calls and texts covers how courts sort messages that mix service and sales. Recruiting texts raise the same definitional question, covered in our post on recruiting texts and the TCPA.

That doesn’t mean a business must accept a claimant’s description of its purpose. I would compare the allegations with the campaign instructions, the services actually offered, and the follow-up process. If the company’s outreach was limited to purchasing property, contemporaneous records explaining that purpose can matter. If different campaigns used different processes, those differences should be preserved in a form that allows counsel to connect a specific message to the instructions and follow-up practices applicable when it was sent.

The opinion expressly limits its treatment of other arrangements. It doesn’t decide every case involving a pure offer to purchase property. Businesses shouldn’t read it as either categorical immunity for purchase offers or an automatic finding against every sender. The particular solicitation theory and supporting facts remain necessary.

I consider campaign-level records more useful than a newly written description of company policy because, although a policy can explain the intended process, but it may not show which version applied to the disputed messages. The original instructions sent to a vendor may provide a clearer answer. Preserve them before asking staff to summarize the arrangement.

What does this mean for a do-not-call defense?

The National Do Not Call Registry is the federal list through which subscribers request limits on telemarketing calls. A Registry claim requires analysis of the applicable statutory and regulatory elements, and the conclusion that a message qualifies as a solicitation isn’t a complete liability determination. The TCPA’s private-action provision in § 227(c)(5) includes requirements concerning repeated calls and violations of implementing regulations.

The current FCC rule separately addresses national and company-specific do-not-call obligations. The company’s records should allow counsel to examine which rule the claimant invokes and whether its requirements are met. A prior relationship or permission may raise additional questions that can’t be answered from the campaign’s purpose alone.

Nor should the business assume that using a vendor resolves responsibility. The agreement and the actual conduct need review. This post doesn’t treat the appellate decision as resolving every question about who is legally responsible for another entity’s communications. That issue calls for its own evidence and legal analysis.

For a potential class action, I would investigate whether the claimant’s proposed group combines different campaigns or services, since differences in consent or the purpose of the messages may affect how the case can be litigated. They shouldn’t be invented after the fact, but existing differences should be documented accurately instead of being lost in a single export that strips out campaign identifiers.

How should real estate businesses prepare their response?

Preserve the original records. When employees revise scripts or change campaign settings to improve future compliance, they should retain the versions used for the disputed outreach so that counsel can evaluate the past conduct without trying to reconstruct it from the revised process. Counsel can separate preservation of the disputed activity from prospective changes.

1. Place the relevant call and text records, platform data, and consent evidence under a litigation hold when a claim arrives. Retain campaign identifiers and the original message text.
2. Export opt-out and internal do-not-call logs with dates, including requests received by employees or vendors outside the primary platform.
3. Obtain National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and identify the list versions used before the disputed outreach.
4. Gather lead-source and vendor contracts and campaign scripts. Save any recorded or AI-voice files. Include instructions explaining whether follow-up would offer brokerage services.
5. Consult a lawyer before responding to the claimant, discussing the allegations directly, or making a settlement offer.

When a claim involving real estate marketing texts and do-not-call requests is filed as a proposed class action, the firm’s page on defending TCPA class actions in California covers what comes next.

Defending real estate outreach claims

If your company receives a TCPA demand over home-buyer texts, the relationship between the initial message and any later service offering should be part of the defense review.

Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving real estate marketing texts and do-not-call requests. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer, LLC, No. 25-4066 (9th Cir. June 4, 2026); 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of June 15, 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.