A National Do Not Call Registry claim depends on a valid registration, and a registration made while the number was a business line may not count. On October 2, 2026, a federal court in Michigan dismissed a text-message Do Not Call class action with prejudice because public records showed the plaintiff’s number was used for business when he registered it in 2003. For a company facing these suits, the history of the plaintiff’s phone number can be as important as its own consent and scrub records.
What did the court decide in Dobronski v. Tony Packo’s Toledo?
It held the plaintiff’s 2003 registration was “void ab initio,” meaning invalid from the start, and dismissed both counts, a Registry claim and a caller-ID claim.
In Dobronski v. Tony Packo’s Toledo, LLC, No. 25-cv-13117 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 2, 2026), Judge Robert J. White granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. According to the order, the case “essentially involves three unsolicited telemarketing text messages Defendant allegedly sent to Plaintiff’s phone between May and September 2025.” The complaint alleged the number was “a residential, non-commercial telephone number” and had been on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2003. The Registry is the federal list of personal numbers whose owners don’t want telemarketing calls.
The defendant answered with public records. The court wrote that those records showed the number “was used as a business contact for Teletech as early as 2001 and continuing through 2003,” and that filings from the plaintiff’s earlier lawsuits showed the number “was still used for Plaintiff’s business(es) through at least 2020.” The plaintiff’s declaration said he sold the business, retired in 2021, and had used the number only for personal purposes since early 2022.
That didn’t save the claim. The court concluded “based on Defendant’s public records that Plaintiff’s purported 2003 registration was void ab initio,” and, having found the number was not properly registered “in the first instance in 2003,” held that the plaintiff “fails to state any claim related to § 227(c)(5).” The claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the court did not reach the defendant’s other arguments.
Why does the registration date matter so much?
Because the Do Not Call rule protects residential subscribers, and a number has to be eligible when it goes on the list.
The FCC’s rule bars telephone solicitations to a “residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry,” under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). The private right of action that plaintiffs sue under, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), lets a person sue only for calls “in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection.” The court relied on that “residential telephone subscriber” language and on the FCC’s definition of a residential subscriber as “not a business subscriber.” It noted that a plaintiff must be a “residential telephone subscriber,” and that “business numbers are not permitted to be registered on the DNC registry.”
The court also refused to apply the usual presumption that a number on the Registry is residential. Because the business use predated the registration, the court declined “to apply in this case the general presumption that numbers on the DNC Registry are presumed to be residential.”
How does this square with the Pennsylvania decision?
The two decisions are consistent. Both turn on timing, and that’s the line defendants should watch.
The plaintiff relied on a 2025 Pennsylvania decision in which a claim survived a similar challenge. In that case, as the Michigan court described it, the plaintiff said he registered his number “in 2015, a full year prior to starting his business,” and the Pennsylvania court treated the registration as “presumably proper.” The Michigan court found that reasoning “relied on the plaintiff having registered his number well before starting the business at issue, which is not the case here.”
Read together, the decisions point the same way. A number registered while it was personal, then used for business, then returned to personal use may still support a claim. A number that was already a business line on the day it was registered is a much weaker starting point. These are district court decisions from different circuits, and neither binds the other, but neither contradicts the other either.
Did the court treat this as standing or as the merits?
The merits. That choice affects how a defendant should frame the motion.
The defendant moved under both Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of standing, and Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. The court found it had jurisdiction because the question of past business use “reaches the merits of this case.” In a footnote, the court explained that whatever the past business use, the plaintiff “nevertheless alleges the type of unsolicited communication and invasion of privacy that various circuit courts hold constitutes an injury in fact under the TCPA.”
The practical point for defense counsel is that public records can still win at the pleading stage under Rule 12(b)(6). The court relied on records it considered “proper for consideration at the 12(b)(6) stage,” including a 2001 FCC license and a 2003 Teletech financial report, and on filings from the plaintiff’s earlier cases. Only records that “utterly discredit” the claim’s key allegations, in the Sixth Circuit language the court quoted, let a judge decline to credit it even on a motion to dismiss.
What should a business take from this?
That the plaintiff’s own number deserves the same scrutiny as the company’s dialer logs, and early.
Investigating the number belongs in the first week of a Do Not Call case, not in discovery. Business registrations, licenses, websites, old directory listings, and court filings that list a number as a company’s contact line are all public. When a plaintiff has filed earlier suits, the complaints in those cases sometimes describe the same number differently. None of this replaces a company’s own defenses, such as consent, an established business relationship, or the Registry scrub. It adds a threshold defense that can end a case before discovery costs mount.
Two cautions keep this honest. First, the defense is fact-specific. A number registered when it was personal sits in a different position, and courts have adopted varying tests for numbers used for both business and personal calls. The firm’s post on TCPA claims over business phone numbers covers those tests. Second, the case involved texts, and courts are still divided on whether texts are “calls” under the Do Not Call provision at all. The Seventh Circuit held in July that they aren’t, as discussed in the firm’s post on Steidinger and California courts. A defendant sued over texts should raise both arguments where the law supports them.
| Defense theory | Source | What it requires | How it played out in Dobronski |
|---|---|---|---|
| Registration void because the number was a business line when registered | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2); 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) | Public records showing business use on the registration date | Granted; claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Number not “residential” at the time of the calls | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) | Evidence of current business use | Plaintiff’s declaration said personal use since 2022. The court did not need to decide |
| Lack of Article III standing | U.S. Const. art. III | Absence of concrete injury | Rejected as a jurisdictional matter. The court treated the issue as a merits question |
| Texts aren’t “calls” under § 227(c)(5) | Split among courts | Favorable circuit or district law | Not raised or addressed in the order |
| No private right of action for caller-ID claims | Varies by court | Favorable circuit or district law | Not reached |
What to do when a Do Not Call claim arrives
For background on how these claims move from demand letter to class action, see the firm’s TCPA defense lawyers page. When one lands:
- Put a litigation hold on text and call logs, platform data, and the consent record for the plaintiff’s number.
- Export the internal do-not-call list and any opt-out requests from that number, with dates.
- Pull the Registry scrub records and the Registry version dates used for each campaign.
- Gather vendor contracts and message templates, and run a public-records search on the plaintiff’s number covering the registration date.
- Talk to a lawyer before replying to the demand, contacting the plaintiff, or discussing settlement.
Questions about business numbers and the Do Not Call Registry
Can a business register its own number on the Do Not Call Registry?
The Registry is meant for residential subscribers. The court in Dobronski quoted earlier decisions holding that business numbers can’t be registered. A business number that ends up on the list anyway doesn’t give its owner a Do Not Call claim, at least in courts that follow this reasoning.
What if the number is a business line now but was registered as personal years ago?
If the number is used for business when the messages arrive, that current use is its own defense, because the rule protects residential subscribers. The harder case is a number that was personal at registration, used for business later, and personal again by the time of the messages. The Michigan court distinguished a Pennsylvania decision on that kind of timeline. Collect evidence on the registration date and on current use.
Does this defense help with prerecorded-voice or autodialer claims?
Not directly. Dobronski concerned the Do Not Call provision, which protects residential subscribers. Claims under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) for prerecorded or artificial-voice calls to cell phones don’t turn on Registry status, so they need their own defenses, such as consent.
Can public records be used on a motion to dismiss?
In this case, yes. The court considered public records and filings from earlier lawsuits at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage and found they discredited the complaint’s allegation of a valid registration. Whether a particular record qualifies depends on the court and the record.
If your company is defending a Do Not Call text claim
If your company has been sued over marketing texts sent to a number on the Do Not Call Registry, the history of that number and the timing of its registration can decide the case before discovery. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving texts to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The decision is Dobronski v. Tony Packo’s Toledo, LLC, No. 25-cv-13117 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 2, 2026) (order granting motion to dismiss). The statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of November 2, 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.