Hello again, TCPAWorld! After a grueling 2.5 months of bar prep (phew), I’m back! It’s wonderful being in the office again and I’m excited to turn my attention back towards all things Troutman Amin (and away from certain bar subjects that shall not be named).

2025 has already been jam packed with TCPA updates, rulings, and new trends, and as I was trying to catch up, I came across a familiar brand in a sticky situation. If you frequent skincare TikTok or the revered aisles of Sephora (like I do), you likely know Sol de Janeiro (“Defendant”) as a popular body care and fragrance brand. Now personally, I wouldn’t mind a discount code or two for my next body butter purchase. However, a certain Amani Manning (“Plaintiff”) is kicking up quite a stink about text messages she claims to have received, allegedly a little too early and in violation of the TCPA.

In Amani Manning v. Sol de Janeiro USA, Inc. (N.D. CA March 03, 2025), Plaintiff alleges that she received two “unauthorized” telephone solicitations from Defendant at 6:05 AM and 7:38 AM in her time zone.

Plaintiff alleges that these communications were sent in violation of TCPA’s call time limitations, which prohibit any telephone solicitation to a residential telephone subscriber before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1). The Complaint also states that Plaintiff’s telephone number has a California area code – presumably to counter any suggestion that she received text messages intended for a different time zone.

Plaintiff seeks to represent the following class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12-month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party’s location).

Now as the Czar pointed out, the TCPA only restricts “telephone solicitations” to call time hours—which means calls made with consent or an established business relationship with the recipient are likely not subject to these restrictions. Interestingly, Plaintiff does not specifically allege that she did not consent to any telephone solicitations – only that she “never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send them telephone solicitations before 8 am or after 9 pm.” However, the Complaint goes on to state, “If Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely transmits telephone solicitations without consent is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.” Confusing, but we’ll keep an eye on what happens.

In the meantime, Sol de Janeiro is just one of many retailers that have been named as defendants in recent call time lawsuits. See IN HOT WATER: Louisiana Crawfish Company Sued Over Early-Morning Text Messages – TCPAWorld, RUDE AWAKENING: Wellness Company Allegedly Sends 5:00 A.M. Texts To Consumers Without Consent. – TCPAWorld, and this one the Czar talked about just this morning: TRENDING: TCPA Class Action Against Steve Madden Shows Clear Trend of SMS Club Suits Against Retailers – TCPAWorld.