California UCL and Intrusion Claims Added to a TCPA Lawsuit
A TCPA complaint filed in California may include state-law counts alongside the federal claim, most often the Unfair Competition Law and the common law tort of intrusion. Each has a hurdle the TCPA doesn’t. The UCL requires the plaintiff to have lost money or property, and intrusion requires conduct that is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Those requirements give a defendant a way to test whether the extra counts add anything, and often a reason to move against them early.
What does the UCL claim require?
The UCL defines unfair competition broadly. Under Business and Professions Code § 17200, “unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” A plaintiff may try to treat the alleged TCPA violation as the unlawful act that supports the state claim.
The obstacle is standing. A private plaintiff may sue only if the person “has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition,” under § 17204. The California Supreme Court explained what that means in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (2011). Proposition 64 added the lost-money-or-property requirement, and the court wrote: “The plain import of this is that a plaintiff now must demonstrate some form of economic injury.”
The court added that “a private plaintiff filing suit now must establish that he or she has personally suffered such harm.” That is stricter than federal standing, and it applies to a plaintiff who sues over calls or texts the same way it applies to anyone else.
Why is economic injury a problem for a plaintiff who got unwanted texts?
Because the injury a TCPA plaintiff describes is usually annoyance and intrusion, not a loss of money or property. In my view, receiving an unwanted message isn’t by itself the loss of money or property, so a UCL count has to allege something more, such as a per-message charge, a data overage, or the cost of a service the plaintiff bought to block the messages. Whether a particular plaintiff can allege that depends on the facts and on the allegations pleaded.
This gives a defendant a concrete motion. If the complaint doesn’t allege that the plaintiff paid anything because of the calls or texts, a challenge to the UCL count on standing grounds is worth considering, and the statute itself, § 17204, makes lost money or property part of the plaintiff’s burden. I’d read the pleading closely for that phrase and for the facts behind it, since courts look at the facts alleged and not the label.
One caution. The standing requirement is about the plaintiff, and a class action doesn’t change that. The named plaintiff has to show the loss personally, which is the reason to challenge it early.
What does the intrusion claim require?
The tort has two elements, which the California Supreme Court laid out in Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal.4th 272 (2009): “First, the defendant must intentionally intrude into a place, conversation, or matter as to which the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Second, the intrusion must occur in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.”
The second element is the hard one. The court described it as a policy determination about whether the intrusion is highly offensive “under the particular circumstances,” as the opinion puts it. Courts weigh the setting of the intrusion and the intruder’s motives.
For a business texting customers, that standard works in the defendant’s favor in most ordinary cases. A handful of marketing messages is a nuisance, and the TCPA already provides the remedy for it. A plaintiff would need facts that make the contact worse than ordinary marketing, such as persistent contact after repeated requests to stop, or messages at hours or in a manner the plaintiff can describe as an invasion. I’d expect a court to be skeptical of an intrusion count that rests on the same facts as the TCPA count and nothing more.
| Count | What the plaintiff must show | Where it is weakest |
|---|---|---|
| UCL, unlawful prong | Injury in fact and lost money or property | No money or property lost |
| Intrusion upon seclusion | Intentional intrusion into a private matter, highly offensive | Ordinary marketing contact |
| TCPA, for comparison | A call or text that violates the statute or rules | Consent, equipment, or elements |
Should a defendant move against the add-on counts?
Often, but with judgment. A motion on the state-law counts narrows the case and can reduce settlement value. It also invites the plaintiff to amend and plead more facts, which can make the complaint stronger and your next motion harder. I’d decide based on how thin the pleading is. If the complaint pleads no economic loss at all, the motion is cheap and clean. If it pleads a loss in conclusory terms, a court may give leave to amend, and the plaintiff may fix it.
Timing and sequencing also matter. A motion on the UCL count can ride along with a motion on the TCPA elements, but a defendant that wants to preserve a federal forum, or to argue consent as a complete defense, should be careful about how much the motion concedes about the facts.
How do the add-on counts change the settlement picture?
They matter more for bargaining position than for dollars. The TCPA count carries the statutory damages, and a plaintiff who adds state-law counts is often trying to widen the case, to add a claim that survives if the federal theory fails, or to avoid a defense aimed at one statute. A defendant who answers each count on its own terms, and who explains early why the UCL count has no injury and the intrusion count has no offensive conduct, usually shrinks the case to the TCPA claim and its defenses, which is the case the defendant wants to be in.
It also helps to be candid about the other direction. If the facts include repeated messages after clear stop requests, an intrusion count looks less like a makeweight, and the defendant’s best answer is the consent and opt-out record. A company that can show it honored each request promptly, and that has a written policy it followed, answers both the TCPA count and the intrusion count with the same evidence. That is another reason to keep the suppression log in good order before any claim arrives.
What to gather when a complaint adds UCL and privacy counts
- Read the complaint for every sentence that alleges a payment, a charge, or a purchase tied to the calls or texts.
- Pull the plaintiff’s account history if the complaint says the plaintiff paid for something because of your messages.
- Collect the message log, with times and content, so you can answer any claim that the contact was offensive.
- Find any record of stop requests and your responses, since persistence is what makes an intrusion count plausible.
- Wait to respond to a demand letter or contact the plaintiff until a lawyer has reviewed the claims.
The firm’s TCPA defense lawyers page describes how these claims move through court. For related reading, see the earlier post on recording sales calls in California, which covers another state-law claim that shows up beside TCPA counts.
Questions defendants ask about add-on state-law claims
Can a plaintiff recover TCPA damages and UCL relief for the same texts?
That depends on what the UCL count seeks and the court’s view of overlap. I’d have counsel read the prayer for relief and the remedies available under the UCL before deciding how much weight to give the count.
Does the UCL count survive if the plaintiff says the texts cost them time?
In my view, lost time isn’t money or property under Kwikset’s description of economic injury. A plaintiff who alleges only lost time or annoyance faces the standing requirement described above.
Does a stop request that was ignored change the analysis?
It can. A message sent after the plaintiff clearly asked you to stop is a better fact for the intrusion count than a first message, and it also matters under the TCPA’s rules on honoring requests. Document when each request arrived and when the suppression took effect, because the gap between those two dates is where these cases are fought.
Is every intrusion claim over texts weak?
No. The strength depends on facts: the number of messages, whether the plaintiff asked you to stop, and what the messages said. I wouldn’t treat the tort as an empty threat.
Do these counts change whether the case belongs in federal court?
They can. State-law claims affect removal and supplemental jurisdiction analysis. Raise that with counsel before you answer.
Defending a TCPA complaint with state-law counts
If your company has been sued in California over calls or texts and the complaint adds UCL or privacy counts, the allegations of economic loss and the message history will shape the early motions. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving state-law counts added to calls and texts. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statutes are California Business and Professions Code § 17200 and § 17204.
The court decisions are Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (2011), and Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal.4th 272 (2009).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of April 22, 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.