The question often arises in TCPA class actions– can the communication platform used to send violative messages be sued directly in the suit?

The answer turns on a number of factors and is somewhat an “eye of the beholder” test.

At a high level, the more involved a platform is with the sending of a message the more likely it is to be held responsible for misuse. On the other hand, the more the platform operates like a “common carrier” that merely facilitates messages sent by users the more likely it is to be found immune from liability.

Then again, a platform can’t just turn a blind eye to known misconduct– so there is a fine line between liable for too much involvement and liable for too little oversight.

Challenging indeed.

Take the case of Connor v. Servicequick, 2025 WL 2855393 (D. Colo. Oct. 8, 2025).

There a platform called Woosender was in a TCPA class action alleging illegal messages were sent to repeat litigator Jay Connor without consent.

Rather than just name the user of the platform, the complaint sued Woosender directly for the texts. Woosender asked the court to dismiss it from the case but it refused on this analysis:

Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Woosender directly initiated the at-issue text messages. Plaintiff not only pleads that he received two texts messages “sent using [Woosender’s] platform at Defendant ServiceQuik’s direction,” ECF No. 35 at 6 ¶ 29, he also alleges that Woosender’s messaging service “goes [f]ar beyond merely providing the platform that enables them to send messages” and includes “actually setting up and providing intimate support for their customers’ campaigns and strategies,” id. at 8 ¶ 40. Plaintiff further alleges that ServiceQuik “used the services provided by Defendant [Woosender] to send out the text message blasts, such as the one Plaintiff received” id. at 8 ¶ 41, and that it was Woosender that actually “sent” the texts at issue, id. at 8 ¶ 44. These allegations are sufficient to establish a “direct connection” between Woosender and the transmission of the at issue texts Plaintiff received. In re Dish Network, 28 F.C.C. Rcd. at 6575. Woosender’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s TCPA claim is DENIED.

Short. Sweet. Devastating.

Can’t say I disagree with the court based on the allegations of the complaint– Woosender’s remedy here is to serve a Rule 11 motion if it believes the allegations are false and then win on MSJ and collect fees.

Bottom line: allegations a platform is “setting up and providing intimate support for their customers’ campaigns and strategies” are enough to state a claim against a platform. That means:

1. CPaaS providers need to think through what level of support they want to provide clients in a world where “too much” can lead to direct liabilty;
2. Again, even support, training, or sales teams can get a platform in trouble by having ecessive involvement in message transmission;
3. CPaaS providers need to be ultra-focused on disclosures and addenda plainly advisng users of their responsibilities to mantain consent and revocation records;
4. CPaaS KYC is more important than ever beore; and
5. CPaaS providers NEED GREAT COUNSEL to help them navigate these tricky issues.