Received an email from Andrew Perrong this morning entitled: “Prepare for the onslaught of 64.1601 claims.”

Attached was this case: Caller ID Claim

He wasn’t kidding.

This is a complete disaster.

In Newell v. JR Capital, 2:25-cv-01419-GAM (E.D. Pa. July 16 , 2025) the court expanded Dobronski’s big recent win against Selectquote holding a marketer must identify itself on a caller ID if the service is available.

The Court went on to hold the requirement applies o SMS messages.

To get there the court determined 47 CFR § 64.1601(e) was promulgated under 227(c) authority– so a private right of action exists. Here is the conclusion reached by the court:

In sum, the administrative history unequivocally demonstrates that caller ID is a network technology, assessed by the FCC as one available method to protect residential telephone subscribers’ privacy rights under § 227(c). See Dobronski v. Selectquote Ins. Servs., No. 23-12597, 2025 WL 900439, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2025) (“The agency record thus suggests that caller ID requirements are a telephone network technology or other alternative that the FCC required in an attempt to help consumers enforce their privacy rights against telemarketers. That places § 64.1601(e) in the heartland of § 227(c).”).

A dude without a lawyer beat a #biglaw firm and now the rest of us have to deal with the consequences.

And, no surprise, the law firm Perrong just whipped in Newell? Also a #biglaw firm.

Sigh.

Hire big law. Expect a big loss.

It gets worse though. Much much worse.

The Court also determined the caller ID requirement applies to text messages:

Finally, the meaning of technical terms used within subsection (e) also show that (e) applies to text messages. Under § 64.1601(e), “[a]ny person or entity that engages in telemarketing . . . must transmit caller identification information.” Caller identification information is defined as “information provided by a caller identification service regarding the telephone number of, or other information regarding the origination of, a call made using a voice service or a text message sent using a text messaging service.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1600(c) (emphasis added).17 Therefore, § 64.1601(e) specifically covers text messages.

Hmmm.

Notably the texts at issue DID provide a correct phone number and several even included a link to the sender’s website. But the texts did not submit caller ID information. So the court allowed the claim to proceed.

I am being a bit thin on analysis here intentionally. Call me and we can discuss.

This is a HUGE deal though.

And, per usual, we were WAY ahead of other law firms on this. We told you this was coming back in April.

Key take aways:

1. Never hire #biglaw to defend you in a TCPA class action (Except Squire and Skadden);
2. These caller ID cases are now very VERY real. Take it seriously and call us;
3. Yes, you need to submit Caller ID information with text messages sent for marketing purposes. Again, call us.

More soon.