Well ever since Dobronski torched Selectquote in that ridiculous first-in-the-nation win a while back courts have been lining up to hold marketers can be sued for failing to transmit caller ID information with outbound calls.

The latest court to so hold was Barton v. Bright Solar Marketing, 2025 WL 2880136 (Oct. 9, 2025).

There the court acknowledged the split of authority but followed Dobronsk:

Plaintiff argues § 64.1601(e) does create a private right of action, relying on two recent district court decisions. In a separate Dobronski v. SelectQuote Ins. Servs. (“Dobronski 2’), the court found that the relevant question with respect to § 64.1601(e) was not whether courts should imply or create a right of action, but whether “as a matter of textual interpretation, § 64.1601(e) falls within the scope of an express cause of action that Congress has already created.” 773 F.Supp.3d 373, 380 (E.D. Mich. 2025). The court first identified the potential subsections of 47 U.S.C.§ 227 under which § 64.1601(e) was promulgated and then eliminated each subsection that could not have been used as authority to promulgate § 64.1601(e). Id. at 376. By process of elimination, the court concluded only 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) could have been used to promulgate § 64.1601(e) because it was “unclear from where in [47 U.S.C. § 227’s other] subsections the FCC gained authority to create a blanket requirement applying to all calls including those that do not relate to automatic dialing, fax machines, or artificial or prerecorded messages.” Id.

Accordingly, it found the private right of action in 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) was available for violations of § 64.1601(e). Id. at 380. Similarly, the court in Newell v. JR Capital, LLC found § 64.1601(e) was “promulgated under § 227(c), and that a private right of action exists.” Case No. 25-1419, 2025 WL 2004706, at *2 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2025). The court in Newell found that Congress “believed that it was important to allow private citizens to enforce certain provisions of the TCPA, and expressly created a cause of action under § 227(c) of the Act.” Id. at *3. The court cited language in § 227(c)(5) which provides that any person “who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection” may bring “an action based on the violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection” for damages and injunctive relief. Id. The court concluded that “because Congress expressly and unequivocally created a private cause of action based on a violation of the regulations prescribed under [§ 227(c)], there is a private cause of action to enforce violations of § 64.1601(e).” Id. at *8.

There is no controlling authority concerning whether § 64.1601(e) confers a private right of action and the Court acknowledges there is a difference of opinion among district courts on this question. Nevertheless, the Court finds more persuasive Dobronski and Newel.

So there you go. Yet another court holds marketers can be sued for Caller ID failures.

Meanwhile, the FCC is proposing entirely new rules regarding Caller ID transmission and it is a really big deal for platforms and carriers.