The Five TCPA Claims Businesses Face, and How Each Is Defended

Nearly every TCPA lawsuit against a business fits one of five theories: a recorded or AI voice without consent, an autodialer without consent, sales calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, calls after a request to stop, and sales calls before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. Each has different elements, different damages language, and different defenses. Sorting a complaint into these boxes is the first step in measuring the real exposure.

1. Recorded or AI-voice calls without consent

The statute makes it unlawful to call a cell phone using “an artificial or prerecorded voice” without “the prior express consent of the called party,” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), and a parallel rule covers home landlines. A single call can support a claim, and the Registry is irrelevant.

AI voices count. The FCC ruled in FCC 24-17 that the TCPA’s restrictions on artificial or prerecorded voices “encompass current AI technologies that generate human voices.” In my view, this is the theory businesses most underestimate, because it doesn’t depend on how numbers were dialed. The defenses are consent from the person actually called, proof that a live person spoke, and, for informational calls, the exemptions in the FCC’s rules.

2. Autodialed calls and texts without consent

The same provision covers calls made with an “automatic telephone dialing system.” The Supreme Court narrowed that term in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, holding that an autodialer must have “the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be called.”

Most marketing and collection platforms dial from customer lists, which puts them outside that definition. Complaints still plead autodialer claims as if Duguid never happened, and a motion to dismiss often clears them out early. The Court left the recorded-voice rule intact, though, writing in Duguid: “Our decision does not affect that prohibition.”

3. Sales calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry

The FCC’s rule at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) bars telephone solicitations to residential subscribers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Calls to people with an established business relationship, or who gave signed written permission, are excluded.

The private claim belongs to someone who received “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity,” under § 227(c)(5). Defenses include the exemptions, a safe harbor for companies with written Registry-compliance procedures that made the call in error, and two arguments that recent decisions have strengthened. The Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that texts aren’t telephone calls for this provision, and a federal court in Virginia held in Lowrey v. Twilio that “Section 227(c) does not apply to cellphones, only residential lines.” Neither binds California courts.

4. Calls after a request to stop

Every company that telemarkets must keep an internal do-not-call list and honor requests within a reasonable time that “may not exceed ten (10) business days from the receipt of such request,” per § 64.1200(d)(3). This claim doesn’t depend on Registry status. A STOP reply also revokes consent for robocalls and robotexts, which can turn later messages into recorded-voice or autodialer claims too.

This is the theory I’d fix first in any compliance program. The defense is a clean record showing when the request arrived and when suppression took effect. Free-form opt-outs that the system didn’t recognize are where these cases usually start.

5. Sales calls outside 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.

The FCC bars telephone solicitations “before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party’s location),” under § 64.1200(c)(1). Like Registry claims, these run through § 227(c)(5), so the same threshold and the same text-message and cell-phone arguments apply. Subscriber consent is often decisive, because messages sent with permission aren’t solicitations.

The five theories side by side

The statute awards “$500 in damages for each such violation” for the first two theories, and “up to $500” for the other three, under § 227. The difference gives courts discretion on the last three that they don’t have on the first two.

Sorting a new complaint

1. Preserve the call and text records for every number named in the complaint and for the campaigns that reached them.
2. Pull opt-out and internal do-not-call logs, with the date each request arrived and the date suppression took effect.
3. Pull Registry scrub records and version dates, and the written Do Not Call procedures in effect at the time.
4. Collect dialer and platform documentation, recorded or AI message files, and vendor contracts.
5. Talk to a lawyer before answering the complaint or contacting the plaintiff about the calls.

Short answers on TCPA theories

Which theory carries the most risk?

Recorded and AI-voice claims, in my view. They don’t need a second call, they don’t depend on the Registry, and Duguid didn’t narrow them. A single campaign using prerecorded or synthetic voice messages without documented consent can produce large class exposure quickly.

Can one complaint plead several theories?

Yes, and most do. A recorded sales call to a registered cell phone can support both a recorded-voice claim and a Registry claim. Whether a plaintiff can recover under both for one call is unsettled in California, so the overlap is worth contesting rather than conceding.

Do political and nonprofit callers face these claims?

Some of them. Do Not Call rules cover sales calls, so political and charitable calls generally fall outside them. The recorded-voice and autodialer rules aren’t limited to sales calls, so a campaign or nonprofit using recorded messages to cell phones still needs consent, subject to narrow exceptions.

Is a wrong-number call a separate theory?

No. It’s usually a recorded-voice claim where the caller had consent from a prior holder of the number but not from the current one. The Reassigned Numbers Database safe harbor and prompt action on wrong-number notices are the main defenses.

When a TCPA claim names your company

If your company has been named in a TCPA claim, identifying which of these five theories the plaintiff is actually relying on is the first step of the defense. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving recorded-voice calls and ignored opt-out requests. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227. The FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as published in the eCFR through October 7, 2026. The FCC’s AI-voice ruling is FCC 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024). The court decisions are Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021); 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 10, 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.