The TCPA’s ban on “prerecorded or artificial” voice calls has often been applied to prerecorded or artificially-generated voicemails.

Remains unclear to me whether that is the proper application of the statute– the TCPA appears to only govern calls made to “deliver a message” in connection with calls to landline and not cell phones– but that is certainly the majority view.

What qualifies as sufficient allegations of prerecorded voicemail usage has varied over time, however. Some courts require quite a bit of specifics. Others less so.

In Taylor v. Kit Insurance, 2025 WL 1651524 (N.D. Ill June 10, 2025) the Court found allegations of identical messages to be sufficient to claim the voicemails were prerecorded in nature.

In Taylor the defendant challenged Plaintiff’s allegations as insufficient because they did not, for instance, provide a complete transcript of the challenged call. The Court was unconvinced and determined the allegations plaintiff provided were fine:

Here, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Defendant used a prerecorded voice. First, Plaintiff alleged that the two voicemails she received were identical in tone, voice, content, and style. Second, she alleged others have complained about receiving the same call. Third, she alleged that the voicemails were generic (meaning, presumably, that they did not use Plaintiff’s name or other identifying information) and had the exact same file size. Accepting these facts as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the voicemails she received were prerecorded in violation of the TCPA.

Pretty straightforward.

Interestingly, however, the Court did agree with the Defendant that Plaintiff had failed to plead facts justifying injunctive relief in the case:

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations do not support the inference that she is at risk of a repeated injury. Plaintiff alleges two calls within the span of a single month. These isolated prior harms, without more, offer the Court no basis to conclude that Plaintiff is likely to receive another pre-recorded call from Defendant in the future. Nor does the complaint plausibly allege that any class member has a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. Plaintiff’s allegations with respect to class members are extremely thin, based “upon information and good faith belief” that Defendant “routinely” uses pre-recorded voicemails, and that others have complained about receiving the same call that Plaintiff received. There are no allegations that these proposed class members have received repeated or continuing pre-recorded calls. For these reasons, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged her standing to pursue injunctive relief under the TCPA.

While this is certainly a nice outcome for the defense I am on the fence on whether challenging injunctive relief allegations are really worth it in the context of a TCPA case. Can’t think of any litigated cases that have resulted in injunctive relief, and most courts will strike (and most Plaintiffs drop) injunctive relief at the class stage. So it kind of seems like a waste of money.

Still a win is a win, and I am sure Kit is pleased to have drawn first blood here.