For anyone who wonders why it is so important to hire attorneys that know the TCPA inside and out, here is another fun example.

In Gutman v. Liberty Bankers Insurance, 2025 WL 615128 (D. N.J. Feb. 26, 2025) a court dismissed a TCPA suit after conducting its own review of the complaint and determining it was insufficient on obvious grounds.

Interestingly, however, the Defendant’s own lawyers had missed the key issues and moved to dismiss on unrelated– and irrelevant–grounds.

In other words, Defendant should have lost because it challenged the wrong issues. But the Court viewed the flaws in the case as so obvious that it could not in good conscious allow the case to proceed.

Holy moly.

In analyzing the motion the Court said the following: “As an initial matter, neither party meaningfully addresses whether the Complaint meets the elements required to plead either claim under the TCPA.”

I mean, that’s just nuts. The entire concept of a 12(b)(6) is to challenge the elements of a claim are not pleaded.

But the Court did the analysis for Liberty Bankers and determined:

1. The regulated technology claim fails because no allegations existed that an ATDS was used; and
2. The DNC claim fails because plaintiff did not allege residential usage of his phone or that he received more than one solicitation in a 12 month period.

Anyone that practices TCPA defense would have spotted those issues immediately.

But per the Court’s order the Defendant simply missed those issues and focused on the “failure” to specifically allege the dates and times of phone calls– which is never going to win as a motion to dismiss ground.

Eesh.

But either way Defendant walked away with the W and TCPAWorld walks away with a reminder– don’t expect the court to bail you out.