Quick reminder– we live in uncertain times.

You probably didn’t need that reminder.

Following the SCOTUS decision in McKesson courts now must independently review the words in statutes and regulations without regard to FCC TCPA rulings to determine the scope and application of the law.

One big place where defendants are lining up to challenge the TCPA’s application is in connection with the DNC rules.

In particular the fact the TCPA’s DNC protections only only apply to “residential telephone subscribers” has TCPA defendant arguing that cell phone users cannot claim DNC protection.

Cell phones– the argument goes– are mobile in nature not “residential.” Plaintiff’s counter that cell phones can be used in the residence for personal purposes and are, therefore, residential lines when used for that purpose.

The FCC had previously rules that cell phones were residential when used for personal purposes but courts are now weighing in with fresh eyes following the Supreme Court’s destruction of all things agency deference.

So we must collect data points.

Here’s one.

In Isaacs v. UsHealth Advisors 2025 WL 2268359 (N.D.GA Aug. 7, 2025) Chief Judge May found cell phones are definitively “residential” lines subject to DNC protection when the phone is used for personal purposes.

Here is the meat of the analysis:

But Defendant’s interpretation of a residential subscriber ignores the fact that “residential” modifies “subscriber,” meaning that the definition is tethered to a type of person rather than a type of technology. See Nielsen v. Preap 586 U.S. 392, 407–08 (2019) (“Because words are to be given the meaning that proper grammar and usage would assign them, the rules of grammar govern statutory interpretation unless they contradict legislative intent or purpose.” (cleaned up)). And although Defendant points out that Congress has occasionally used the term “cellular telephone service” and could have done so here if it intended for the TCPA to cover cell phones, Defendant overlooks the fact that Congress has also used the term “residential telephone line” elsewhere in the TCPA. 4 Put differently, Congress has sometimes limited the scope of the TCPA to specific types of phone lines, but, in this case, has limited the TCPA only to a particular type of subscriber. See Sunshine State Reg’l Ctr., Inc. v. Dir., U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. , No. 24-10007, 2025 WL 1903192, at *10 (11th Cir. July 10, 2025) (“[W]hen a statute uses one term in one place and a distinct term elsewhere, the difference matters that is, the distinct words have different meanings.” (citing Sw. Airlines Co. v. Saxon , 596 U.S. 450, 457–58 (2022))).

Interesting, no?

Under the Isaacs rule a phone that is paid for by a business would NOT be subject to the TCPA’s DNC protections even if used by a consumer. But cell phones paid for by consumers ARE residential even if cellular in nature.

This ruling is something of a middle ground position and one to keep in mind for B2B callers.

Be sure to keep ALL the TCPA case law in mind as litigation risk SPIKES.