So there’s this guy named Mark Dobronski.

Frequent commenter on TCPAWorld.

Aggressive repeat litigator who is not, at all, afraid to go it alone in TCPA cases and bring suits on his own behalf. He also raises novel and interesting issues.

Here’s one.

47 CFR 64.1601 provides that anyone engaging in telemarketing must transmit either a CPN or ANI, and the name of the telemarketer. 

Dobronski alleged SelectQuote didn’t comply with this rule. So he sued.

But SelectQuote moved for summary judgment and won originally with the court determining the CFR provision was promulgated under section 227(e)–the Truth in Caller ID Act–that does not afford a private right of action.

Great, fine. Except one little problem– 64.1601 was promulgated before 227(e) was added to the TCPA.

Oops.

So this creates a mystery: Which section of the TCPA was the CFR section promulgated under?

SelectQuote’s attorneys argued it was pursuant to Section 227(d)–which proscribes technical requirements for prerecorded calls– but Dobronski countered the provisions of 64.1601 apply to all marketing calls, not just prerecorded calls.

As a result the Court defaulted to 227(c) as the statutory section that gave the FCC authority to promulgate the rule. This is so although the court conceded section 227(c) was not a perfect fit either.

So Dobronski just got a court to hold that the provisions of 64.1601 ARE enforceable pursuant to a private right of action.

Eesh.

That means telemarketers–looking at you lead generators–need to make sure either:

1. The name of the telemarketer is displayed on your caller ID; or 
2. The name of the seller on behalf of which the telemarketing call is placed and the seller’s customer service telephone number.

Hope ya’ll are following along. Because this is a HUGE deal.

Btw– the CORRECT answer here is that the FCC EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY in creating 64.1601 as Congress had not yet given it the ability to regulate caller ID until 227(e) was passed. Ta da.

But SelectQuote’s lawyers (apparently) did not raise that argument. So here we are.

And, what a surprise– the lawyers who just got beat by a guy WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY are from, you guessed it!, #BIGLAW!!!

Hire big law. Expect big losses folks.

Luckily you can get out of the biglaw trap for less money but only for another 6 days!

Chat soon.

Case is: Dobronski v. SelectQuote 2025 WL 900439 (E.D. Mich March 25, 2025)