/>i
We don’t talk much about the Illinois Telephone Solicitation Act (ITSA) but that may be about to change.
The ITSA is a state mini-TCPPA that only has three core restrictions:
- Solicitation hours of 8 am to 9 pm;
- At the start of a call a solicitor must identify themselves and state the purpose of the call and inquire whether the person consents to the solicitation; and
- A telephone solicitation must display valid Caller ID.
There’s a fascinating exemption to these rules, however, that has critical interplay with the TCPA as a Defendant found out in Showers v. Pelican Investment, 2026 WL 251730 (S.D. Il Jan. 30, 2026).
In Showers the Plaintiff alleges that Dimension Service Corporation, in concert with a company called Sunpath, Ltd. administered an “aggressive” telemarketing campaign to sell Vehicle Service Contracts (“VSCs”) across the country, including in Illinois. Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC allegedly initiated and carried out these calls on Dimension’s behalf, thus acting as Dimension’s agent in the scheme. Sing for Service, LLP, d.b.a. Mepco allegedly acted as a payment processor, facilitating monthly premium payments from consumers for the VSCs they purchased.
The plaintiff sued the Defendants arguing they made calls to numbers on the DNC list using an ATDS–an odd allegation, that will have a major impact in the ruling– and that they failed to comply with ITSA’s disclosure requirements and just used a phony name like “vehicle warranty department” or something vague like that.
On the DNC piece the defendants challenged cell phones were not “residential” numbers under the DNC. Unlike the SMS-are-not-calls argument that has actually gained traction post McKesson, all courts to look at the issue have concluded cell numbers can be residential under the TCPA. And Showers was no exception.
So the TCPA claim lives on.
But on the ITSA claim the defendants had a very interesting argument.
One of the few exemptions to ITSA is this oddball:
Sec. 20. Exemptions. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to telephone calls made by an autodialer.
Huh?
So cold-call solicitors are forgiven from the ITSA rules but only if they DO use an autodialer?
What kind of sense does that make?
Regardless the defendants in Showers pointed this out to the court. And since the Plaintiff had needlessly alleged ATDS usage in connection with her 227(c) claim (ATDS usage is NOT an element of that claim) it looked like the defendant had a pretty good argument.
But the Court correctly rejected the argument because the defendant had DENIED using the ATDS. And Defendant can’t deny ATDS usage, on the one hand, and take advantage of the autodialer “defense” on the other.
So this puts defendants in a fascinating quandry.
On balance it is still better to deny ATDS usage it seems to me–at least in most cases– but there’s a really pincer grip situation in play here that is both unusual and creates a trap for those not paying attention.
So pay attention!
