Fascinating one for you today.

The code of federal regulations requires all prerecorded telemarketing calls to identify the sender of the call within two seconds of the greeting.

The provision may have been enacted under two different provisions of the TCPA– nobody knows for sure oddly– and only one of those sections has a private right of action.

The one that does deals with calls to numbers where a subscriber has asked for calls to stop.

Well in Luckau v. Sunrun, 2025 WL 2780784 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2025) the court determined a plaintiff who did not actually ask for calls to stop cannot sue for a telemarketer’s failure to identify itself:

Luckau alleges that the messages included a company name and phone number, which he alleges is the number Sunrun instructs consumers to call if they want to opt out from marketing calls, and the messages also indicated that the call was “responding to your request for information on solar energy for your home.” ECF No. 29 ¶¶ 24, 53. As the Court previously observed, “this is not a case where alleged noncompliance with Section 64.1200(d)(4) would have left [Luckau] unable to determine how to make a stop request.”

Here, the disclosure requirement relied on by Luckau is part of the procedural requirements for maintaining an internal do-not-call list, not a standalone requirement, and the Court does not find Luckau’s injury to be fairly traceable to the alleged violation of Section 64.1200(d)(4).

This is a big win for Sunrun and something for TCPA defendant’s to keep in mind– the regs related to DNC calling rules can only be enforced by someone who actually asked for the calls to stop– at least according to this court.

Notably Sunrun’s counsel actually missed this issue and the court had to flag it for them: “Neither party considers that the requirement to identify “the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made,”.. so that’s a bit embarrassing. But at least the court bailed them out with its own analysis– always nice when that happens.