Car Dealership TCPA Risk: Sales, Service, Recall, and BDC Texts

A signature on one dealership’s paperwork doesn’t authorize every text that follows it. In 2024 a federal court in New York held that consent forms signed by a Honda store’s customers didn’t reach the Lexus store that texted them after the Honda store closed. For a dealer, TCPA exposure depends on which store got consent, for what kind of message, and who pressed send. A dealership that can answer those questions message by message usually has more defenses than a demand letter lets on.

Does a credit application, test drive form, or service visit give a dealer consent to text?

It gives the collecting store consent for messages tied to why the customer gave the number. Marketing needs more.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s robocall rules cover messages sent by autodialer (equipment that dials numbers it generates randomly or sequentially) or a prerecorded voice (a recorded or artificial voice instead of a live person). Informational messages sent that way to a cell phone need prior express consent. Marketing needs prior express written consent, which under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9) is a signed agreement that “clearly authorizes the seller to deliver or cause to be delivered to the person called advertisements or telemarketing messages” by those methods, names the number, and includes required disclosures. The general rules on how far consent stretches are in our post on the scope of TCPA consent.

The FCC’s 2008 ruling treats a number “provided by the called party to a creditor in connection with an existing debt” as consent for calls about that debt, not for sales follow-up.

Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles shows the limits. According to the court’s September 19, 2024 opinion, Honda of Manhattan closed in January 2017 and gave its customer list to what it called its “sister dealership,” Lexus of Manhattan, which texted those customers through November 2017. The court threw out the autodialer claim because the texting platform wasn’t an autodialer, so the consent ruling came under the Do Not Call rule’s signed-agreement exception. The Honda form said the store might text buyers about promotions and service, but the court held that consent didn’t extend to the Lexus store, writing that “permission may be transferred between parties under the TCPA, but the possibility of that transfer must be apparent from the consent given.” It also rejected the idea that customers consented by not opting out: “Nothing in the statute suggests that sufficient consent can be created in this way.”

In Eisenband v. Pine Belt Automotive, a shopper who called a Nissan store about a lease later got promotional texts. The court never reached consent. It granted the dealer summary judgment because its CRM platform couldn’t generate random or sequential numbers, with the platform’s designer testifying that it didn’t “do anything automatically.” I wouldn’t build a compliance program on that result.

Can a service reminder or lease-end text include an offer?

It can, but then a plaintiff will treat the whole message as marketing. The FCC said in its 2003 order that prerecorded customer-service messages that also promote products are, in most instances, advertisements “regardless of the customer service element to the call,” because such messages are “motivated in part by the desire to ultimately sell additional goods or services.” After the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., district courts “must determine the meaning of the law under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation,” so that FCC reading gets respect but doesn’t bind the court.

Service framing didn’t protect the dealer in Watson. According to the opinion, one of the texts asked, “Can I text you regarding the maintenance for your Honda vehicle?” The court held that customers’ silence after that message wasn’t consent, and a Do Not Call claim for a certified class survived summary judgment.

My view: a service-due text or lease-maturity notice should do one job. If the sales desk wants a pull-ahead offer, send it separately to customers whose consent covers marketing.

Under § 64.1200(a)(10), in effect since April 11, 2025, a “stop” reply revokes consent for robocalls and robotexts. In DA 25-312, the FCC’s consumer bureau delayed until April 11, 2026 the part of that rule that treats a revocation sent in response to one type of message “as applicable to all future robocalls and robotexts from that caller on unrelated matters.” I’d honor a STOP to a service text across the store anyway. A dealer that keeps texting someone who said stop hands a plaintiff a better story.

Are safety recall notices exempt from the TCPA?

A genuine recall notice is informational, but a recall text that’s really a pitch for paid work isn’t safe. Federal law puts the notice duty on the manufacturer, which under 49 C.F.R. § 577.7 must notify owners “by first class mail to each person who is registered under State law as the owner of the vehicle.” That rule doesn’t require a dealer’s own recall texts, and the TCPA’s consent rules apply to them. Whether a recall can qualify as an emergency is covered in our post on the TCPA emergency purposes exception.

In Gillmore v. Lokey Automotive Group, the class action complaint alleged that a Volkswagen dealer texted owners from a purchased list of open recalls, and that the plaintiff’s ten-year-old recall wasn’t covered by warranty, so the text was sent “with the purpose of soliciting her to schedule an appointment at its dealership.” Those were allegations only. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case in November 2017, before the dealer responded, so no court ruled on them.

When does the Do Not Call rule apply to dealership sales calls and texts?

The rule bars sales calls and texts to residential numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, the federal list of consumers who don’t want telemarketing, unless the dealer has a signed written agreement or an established business relationship. A private claim needs more than one such call within 12 months by or on behalf of the same entity.

Under § 64.1200(f)(5), it lasts eighteen months after a purchase or transaction and three months after an inquiry. The relationship also “does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate.” In Watson, the court left it to a jury whether Honda buyers would expect a Lexus store to be included. I think any dealer group that shares one customer database across brands has this problem built in.

A stop request ends the exemption early. Under § 64.1200(f)(5)(i), a seller-specific do-not-call request “terminates an established business relationship for purposes of telemarketing and telephone solicitation even if the subscriber continues to do business with the seller.” In Sagar v. Kelly Automotive Group, the court summarized the complaint as alleging no dealings with the group “since 2015 when he made a request to one of its managers to be placed on its internal do-not-call list,” followed by sale texts in 2021. The court denied the dealer’s motion to dismiss in November 2021, and the case settled in December 2021.

Sagar also held, at the pleading stage, that texts count as “telephone calls” for the Do Not Call claim. Courts have split on that question since McLaughlin. In August 2025, a federal court in Florida held in Davis v. CVS Pharmacy that a text message isn’t a “telephone call” under § 227(c)(5), and the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the appeal. On November 10, 2025, a federal court in Chicago reached the opposite result in Mujahid v. Newity. I’d raise the argument in any Do Not Call text case, but I wouldn’t plan around winning it.

Section 64.1200(c)(1) bars solicitations to residential subscribers “before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party’s location).” State law can be tighter: Florida’s telemarketing statute bars covered sellers’ solicitation calls “before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m.”

Under § 227(c)(5), a plaintiff may “receive up to $500 in damages for each such violation,” and in January 2025 the Watson court ruled that this language “makes clear that plaintiffs may be awarded less than $500 per violation.” The court also granted the dealer summary judgment on treble damages, reasoning that “it is too much to say that Defendant should have been aware that it was violating the law.” In July 2025 the parties moved for preliminary approval of a class settlement with a stated value of $695,000, and that motion was pending as of this post. A settlement is not an admission of liability.

Is the dealership liable for what its BDC or texting vendor sends?

It depends. The FCC’s rule makes the dealer answer for a vendor’s failure to honor do-not-call requests the vendor records. Beyond that, a plaintiff generally has to prove the vendor acted as the dealer’s agent. Under § 64.1200(d)(3), when do-not-call requests “are recorded or maintained by a party other than the person or entity on whose behalf the call is made, the person or entity on whose behalf the call is made will be liable for any failures to honor the do-not-call request.” Shifting that risk back by contract is covered in our post on TCPA vendor contracts and indemnity.

Grant v. Regal Automotive Group shows how these campaigns go wrong. According to the court’s October 2022 order, a dealer hired a marketing company to promote a sales event by ringless voicemail, a prerecorded message dropped into voicemail without ringing the phone. The marketing company bought 15,691 numbers from a data vendor that “undertook no effort to determine whether any of the telephone numbers provided actually belonged” to the listed people. The court had granted the plaintiff summary judgment in part, including on the claim that the voicemails were telemarketing sent without prior express written consent. It then dismissed the case for lack of standing, relying on Salcedo v. Hanna and the unpublished Grigorian decision, decertified the class, and vacated the summary judgment.

I wouldn’t count on that exit. In 2023 the full Eleventh Circuit held in Drazen v. Pinto that “the receipt of an unwanted text message causes a concrete injury,” rejecting the degree-of-harm reasoning in Salcedo, the single-text decision. And in FCC 22-85, the FCC ruled that ringless voicemail to a wireless phone “requires consumer consent” as a prerecorded-voice call.

Does the manufacturer or the dealer group answer for dealer marketing?

To reach a manufacturer or dealer group for a store’s campaign, a plaintiff has to prove agency. In Grigorian v. FCA US LLC, the Eleventh Circuit described a 2018 campaign in which the automaker hired a third party to deliver a prerecorded voicemail to purchased numbers, telling recipients to “Visit your closest Chrysler dealership” for a bonus incentive. According to the opinion, “over 89,000 people received” it. The court affirmed dismissal for lack of standing in an unpublished decision, and in 2023 the Sixth Circuit declined to follow it on ringless voicemail: “We diverge from those non-binding decisions.”

One dealer group management company did better. In Goodell v. BH Automotive, former customers sued over sales calls from two Phoenix stores and tried to hold the group’s management company vicariously liable. In March 2023 the court dismissed that claim for lack of standing because the plaintiffs couldn’t show vicarious liability. The company gave the stores telemarketing training and facilitated and accessed their CRM, but the court noted testimony that its “non-binding recommendations are just that,” and the plaintiffs had no evidence the stores couldn’t reject them. The claims against the two stores settled later that year.

What’s the risk in conquest campaigns to purchased lists?

In my view, it’s the riskiest marketing a dealer does. A purchased list carries no consent and no business relationship, so every registry number is a potential Do Not Call violation, and a ringless voicemail needs signed written consent the dealer doesn’t have.

A court may increase any award to up to three times the base amount, $1,500 per violation under § 227(b), if it finds the violation willful or knowing.

What to pull together if a dealership gets a TCPA demand

1. Put a litigation hold on the dealer management system and CRM records for the numbers involved, plus the texting platform’s data, including send logs and consent records, and send the same hold to every vendor that touched the campaign.
2. Export the internal do-not-call list and every STOP or opt-out reply, with its date and the store that received it.
3. Pull the registry scrub records for the campaign, with the dates of the registry version used.
4. Collect every vendor and OEM co-op agreement, plus scripts and voicemail audio files.
5. Talk to a lawyer before anyone at the store calls the customer back, answers the demand letter, or offers money.

The firm’s page for TCPA defense attorneys in California covers how claims involving dealership sales texts and vendor-sent voicemail are evaluated, from the records to the first response.

Questions dealers ask about the TCPA

Can a dealership text a customer who bought a car three years ago?

Not for sales if the number is on the registry and nothing newer connects them. The business relationship runs eighteen months from the last purchase or transaction, so a recent service visit restarts it, but only with that store and affiliates the customer would expect. Otherwise it needs a signed written agreement. A purely informational text about an open recall or a booked appointment generally isn’t a solicitation unless it also pitches paid work, though it still needs prior express consent if it’s autodialed or prerecorded to a cell phone.

Does a STOP reply to a service text stop sales texts too?

Not necessarily yet, because the FCC delayed until April 11, 2026 the requirement that a revocation cover a caller’s unrelated messages. But a request not to be called can still end the business relationship exemption. Most dealers are safer treating any STOP as a stop for the whole store.

Is a dealer liable if its vendor bought the phone list?

It depends. A plaintiff will argue the vendor acted on the dealer’s behalf, but outside the do-not-call recordkeeping rule, the plaintiff generally has to prove agency. The dealer’s protection is a contract requiring consent records and scrubbing, backed by indemnity and insurance.

If your dealership is the one being sued

If your store faces a TCPA claim over sales or service texts, the consent forms, relationship dates, and vendor send logs usually decide what the case is worth. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving dealership sales texts and vendor-sent voicemail. 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 rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, and the recall notice rule is at 49 C.F.R. § 577.7, both as published in the eCFR on November 22, 2025. Florida’s calling-hours rule is Fla. Stat. § 501.616 (2025).

The FCC materials are the 2003 TCPA Report and Order, FCC 03-153, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, and the ACA International Declaratory Ruling, FCC 07-232, 23 FCC Rcd 559 (2008). The ringless voicemail ruling is FCC 22-85 (Nov. 21, 2022), and the revocation waiver is the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau’s order in DA 25-312 (Apr. 7, 2025).

The court decisions are McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226 (U.S. June 20, 2025); Drazen v. Pinto, 74 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc); Grigorian v. FCA US LLC, 838 F. App’x 390 (11th Cir. 2020); Dickson v. Direct Energy, LP, 69 F.4th 338 (6th Cir. 2023); Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-04572 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2024), and order of Jan. 24, 2025; Sagar v. Kelly Automotive Group, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-10540 (D. Mass. Nov. 29, 2021); Eisenband v. Pine Belt Automotive, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-08549 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2020); Grant v. Regal Automotive Group, Inc., No. 8:19-cv-00363 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2022); Goodell v. BH Automotive, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-01657 (D. Ariz. Mar. 29, 2023); Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-00477 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025); and Mujahid v. Newity, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-08012 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2025). The complaint is Gillmore v. Lokey Automotive Group, Inc., No. 8:17-cv-02064 (M.D. Fla. filed Aug. 29, 2017).

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of November 22, 2025. 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.