Does Business Insurance Cover TCPA Claims in California?

Sometimes, and the policy’s wording decides it. California’s Supreme Court held in 2022 that a general liability policy covering publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy can cover TCPA claims over unsolicited texts, if that fits the insured’s reasonable expectations. But many policies exclude TCPA claims by name, and the Ninth Circuit has enforced a broad privacy exclusion against a TCPA suit. A company that tenders early, with the full policy in hand, keeps every coverage argument it has.

Which policies might respond to a TCPA claim?

More than one, potentially. Two well-known coverage fights involved different kinds of policies. Yahoo’s dispute was over a commercial general liability policy and its “personal injury” coverage, as the California Supreme Court’s opinion describes it. The Los Angeles Lakers’ dispute was over the corporate liability coverage in a directors and officers policy. Other policy types may have relevant language too. The answer for any company depends on the grant of coverage, the definitions, and the exclusions in the actual policies, including endorsements that change the standard form.

That’s why I’d tender a TCPA claim to every carrier whose policy might respond, not just the one the company thinks of first. A carrier can’t evaluate a policy it never received, and the company loses nothing by asking.

Don’t forget the vendor’s insurance. When a texting platform, call center, or lead generator placed the calls, its own policies may respond, and the vendor contract may require it to name the seller as an additional insured. Those terms are easy to overlook in the first week of a claim, and they can matter more than the seller’s own coverage if the seller’s policy carries a TCPA exclusion.

How California’s Supreme Court read the privacy clause

The privacy clause in many general liability policies covers injury from “publication” of material that violates a person’s right of privacy. Insurers have argued that a TCPA claim isn’t about publishing anything. It’s about an unwanted message arriving. California’s courts had drawn that line before. An earlier Court of Appeal decision, quoted by the Supreme Court, explained that “Invasion of the privacy right of seclusion involves the means, manner, and method of communication in a location (or at a time) which disturbs the recipient’s seclusion,” as distinct from disclosing secrets, according to Yahoo Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.

In Yahoo, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court whether that publication language covers TCPA claims over unsolicited texts. The court’s answer: “We conclude that it does, assuming such coverage is consistent with the insured’s reasonable expectations,” per the opinion. It added that such a policy “can also trigger the insurer’s duty to defend the insured against a claim that the insured violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages that did not reveal any private or secret information,” provided the alleged violation amounts to a seclusion violation under California law.

Two details limit the holding. Yahoo had negotiated an endorsement that removed the policy’s TCPA exclusion. The court noted that “The standard policy, however, excluded injuries arising from the distribution of material in violation of the TCPA.” And the court left open how an endorsement concerning advertising injury might affect coverage. A company whose policy still carries the standard TCPA exclusion shouldn’t read Yahoo as a promise of coverage.

How exclusions cut off coverage

Exclusions are where most TCPA coverage disputes are decided. In Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., a fan texted a number shown on the arena scoreboard, got a reply text, and filed a TCPA class action. The team’s insurer refused to defend, relying on an exclusion for invasion of privacy claims. The Ninth Circuit’s majority held that “a TCPA claim is, by its nature, an invasion of privacy claim,” and that “a liability insurance policy that unequivocally and broadly excludes coverage for invasion of privacy claims also excludes coverage for TCPA claims.”

The panel was divided. One judge concurred on narrower grounds and another dissented, reasoning that the plaintiff sued for a statutory violation and expressly disavowed his privacy claims. I’d read any privacy exclusion word by word before accepting a denial based on it. That split doesn’t change the result in Lakers, but it shows the argument an insured can make when an exclusion is worded more narrowly than the one in that policy.

There’s a tension worth seeing here. Yahoo treats a TCPA text claim as a privacy injury that a privacy coverage grant can reach. Lakers treats a TCPA claim as a privacy claim that a privacy exclusion can bar. Both decisions read the claim the same way, so the outcome depends mostly on which clause the policy contains. In my view, that’s the single most useful thing a company can learn about its TCPA coverage before a claim arrives.

Policy wording and what it means for a TCPA claim

What about treble damages and willfulness?

California law limits insurance for intentional misconduct. Insurance Code § 533 provides: “An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured’s agents or others.”

TCPA complaints commonly ask for up to $1,500 per call on the theory that the violations were willful or knowing, on top of the $500 base amount under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). Expect a carrier to point to that allegation. A request for trebled damages in a complaint isn’t a finding, and the base claim usually doesn’t depend on intent, so I wouldn’t treat a willfulness allegation as the end of the coverage analysis. How § 533 applies to a particular TCPA claim is a question for coverage counsel reading the actual pleadings and policy.

Getting the coverage question answered early

1. Preserve the call and text logs, platform data, and consent records for the numbers in the claim under a litigation hold, since the carrier will ask for them.
2. Pull the opt-out and internal do-not-call records, with dates, which bear on the willfulness allegation a carrier may rely on.
3. Pull the National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and version dates for the campaigns involved.
4. Collect every policy in force during the calling period, including endorsements and declarations pages, along with vendor contracts and any additional-insured or indemnity terms.
5. Talk to a lawyer before responding to the claimant, and give written notice to each carrier promptly, before the company commits to a settlement position.

The firm’s page for TCPA defense attorneys in California covers how claims involving marketing texts and robocall campaigns are evaluated, from the records to the first response.

Questions businesses ask about TCPA coverage

Should we tender a demand letter, or wait for a lawsuit?

Read the notice provisions in each policy, because many require notice of a claim or of circumstances that could lead to one. Tendering a demand letter usually costs nothing and avoids a late-notice dispute later. If the carrier says a demand isn’t yet a claim, that answer is useful too, and it’s in writing. Our post on responding to a TCPA demand letter covers the rest of what to do when one arrives.

Does a TCPA exclusion bar coverage for related state-law claims?

It depends on the exclusion’s wording. Some exclusions name only the TCPA. Others reach any statute governing calls, texts, faxes, or the sending of material, which can sweep in state telemarketing laws. Yahoo expressed no view on that kind of broader statute exclusion. Coverage counsel should compare each pleaded claim against each exclusion.

Can we negotiate TCPA coverage at renewal?

Sometimes. Yahoo’s policy carried a negotiated endorsement that removed the standard TCPA exclusion, and that endorsement is what made the coverage question live. A company that calls or texts customers at volume should ask its broker whether its policies exclude TCPA claims and whether the exclusion can be narrowed or removed, and should get the answer in writing.

Does the carrier control the defense once it accepts?

Often, subject to the policy terms and any reservation of rights. When a carrier defends under a reservation, the insured’s and insurer’s interests can diverge on issues like willfulness. That’s a reason to involve coverage counsel early, alongside defense counsel, and not after the first settlement demand.

Defending TCPA claims while coverage is sorted out

If your company has received a TCPA demand or complaint, the defense and the coverage question move on the same clock. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving marketing texts and robocall campaigns. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921. For the broader damages picture a carrier will weigh, see our guide to TCPA damages exposure.

Sources

The decisions are Yahoo Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. S253593 (Cal. Nov. 17, 2022), and Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 869 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2017). The statutes are California Insurance Code § 533 and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227.

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