/>iGreetings TCPAWorld!
I’m back with the latest. Yesterday, ExxonMobil Corporation was named in a new TCPA class action in the Northern District of California. See Yates v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:25-cv-03984 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2025). The allegations are already fueling controversy (pun intended). And if you’ve been tracking the ongoing Quiet Hours saga, this one’s straight textbook.
Filed May 7, 2025, the Complaint alleges that Exxon sent Plaintiff five marketing text messages between 6:06 a.m. and 7:46 a.m. local time—well before the 8 a.m. safe harbor set by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1). The messages advertised Exxon’s rewards program with lines like: “Exxon Mobil Rewards+: Earn 3pts/gal each time you fill up” and “Complete your profile and earn $1 in bonus points.”
Sound familiar? It should. This playbook mirrors the MASSIVE surge of Quiet Hours litigation that R.E.A.C.H. (Responsible Enterprises Against Consumer Harassment) has been aggressively fighting in its recent FCC comments.
R.E.A.C.H.’s position is simple: messages sent with “prior express invitation or permission” don’t count as “telephone solicitations,” and therefore fall outside the timing restrictions altogether. If the consumer opts in, the timing shouldn’t matter.
But let’s pump the brakes and think practically. A recipient receiving these messages could be on vacation, visiting family, or just traveling out of their home time zone. In this context, timing isn’t always something a sender can cleanly control—but the litigation risk? That’s very real.
Here, the Complaint is the classic example we are seeing repeatedly. It’s filled with screenshots, timestamps, and a class definition likely to try and sweep in thousands of Exxon Rewards+ members nationwide. And of course, the stakes here are massive.
R.E.A.C.H. recently submitted data to the FCC analyzing 184 Quiet Hours cases filed by a single South Florida law firm through March 31, 2025. The Exxon Complaint fits the mold. Like 77% of those cases, it avoids listing a complete phone number, stating that “Plaintiff’s telephone number has an area code that specifically coincides with locations in California.” Also notable: the Complaint was filed more than a year after the first alleged message, which falls squarely within the filing delays R.E.A.C.H. flagged in over 20% of these cases. So, we see not only familiar fact patterns but also familiar procedural timing that keeps these cases running.
As always,
Keep it legal, keep it smart, and stay ahead of the game.
Talk soon!
