Skip to main content

Saturday, October 10, 2026

TCPA Analysis Calls DNC Claims 'Plummeting' as Courts Sanction Abusive Filings

TCPAWorld published analysis arguing that TCPA do-not-call claim risk, once a straightforward two-call trigger, is now eroding under a run of new case law. Separately, a federal court found a plaintiff set up his own TCPA claims in bad faith and faces sanctions, and a federal district court limited discovery in a putative class action to one plaintiff's individual claims.

1Lookup Signal Report

64.8% of checks came back mobile across 2,493 checks on October 10

Mobile line share fell to 64.8%, down 15.5 points from the trailing seven-day average of 80.3%. Active phone status also slipped to 84.8%, down 7.7 points from its 92.5% baseline, while email deliverability eased to 91.9%, down 1.8 points from 93.7%.

Phone line types

2,493 checks

  • mobile64.8%
  • other line types35.2%

Phone number status

2,493 checks

  • active84.8%
  • inactive1.3%
  • other line types13.8%

Email deliverability

2,895 checks

  • deliverable91.9%
  • undeliverable2.4%
  • other line types5.7%

Every completed lookup on 1Lookup this UTC day.

  1. 01

    TCPAWorld says TCPA do-not-call claim risk is dropping fast as new case law piles up

    TCPAWorld's analysis notes that TCPA DNC claims used to be simple: two or more unsolicited marketing calls or texts to a residential number on the DNC list meant a viable claim. A series of new cases has now changed that calculus, according to the outlet, though the piece does not name the specific rulings driving the shift.

    Why it matters: If DNC claim risk is genuinely eroding, that changes the cost-benefit math for any business still calling or texting numbers on do-not-call lists. Operators should not treat this as a green light until the underlying case law is confirmed.

  2. 02

    Federal court finds Daniel Human set up TCPA claims in bad faith, sanctions looming for him and his counsel

    In Daniel Human v. Fisher Investments, 2026 WL 2949263 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 30, 2026), a federal court determined Human set up TCPA lawsuits, reportedly by filling out forms using other people's names. TCPAWorld frames this as a warning to TCPA litigators who manufacture claims this way.

    Why it matters: This shows courts actively punishing manufactured TCPA claims, not just defending against legitimate ones. Businesses facing suspicious TCPA suits now have a concrete precedent for arguing bad faith and seeking sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel.

  3. 03

    Court splits discovery in HomeLight TCPA class action, limits first 120 days to one plaintiff's claims

    In Hopkins v. HomeLight, Inc., No. 26-cv-5017-BHS, 2026 WL 3025792 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 2026), the court granted HomeLight's motion to bifurcate discovery. For the next 120 days, the parties may only take discovery on Hopkins's own TCPA Do Not Call claims. Class-wide discovery waits until the court rules on summary judgment.

    Why it matters: Bifurcation narrows and delays the scope of discovery defendants face early in TCPA class litigation, which can reduce legal costs and buy time before a company has to produce class-wide calling records.

  4. 04

    Collector faces FDCPA and TCPA class action over calls allegedly placed after a verbal cease request

    AccountsRecovery.net's October 9 digest reports a debt collector facing an FDCPA and TCPA class action over calls allegedly placed after a verbal cease request. The same digest notes a judge dismissed an FCRA suit over a collection tradeline that did not mirror the original account, and a judge denied sanctions in a long-running FDCPA fight.

    Why it matters: A verbal cease request triggering liability is a reminder that consent and cease-and-desist tracking cannot rely only on written records. Collectors and callers need a process for logging verbal stop requests immediately.

Questions people asked today

Is TCPA do-not-call claim risk actually going down?
TCPAWorld's October 9 analysis argues that DNC claim risk is dropping fast due to a series of new cases, moving away from the old standard where two unsolicited marketing calls to a DNC-listed number meant a viable claim. The piece does not detail every ruling behind this shift.
What happened in the Daniel Human TCPA sanctions case?
A federal court in Daniel Human v. Fisher Investments, 2026 WL 2949263 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 30, 2026), found Human set up his TCPA claims, reportedly by filling out forms with other people's names, and he and his counsel now face sanctions for what the court called complete bad faith.
What did the court decide in the HomeLight TCPA case?
In Hopkins v. HomeLight, Inc. (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 2026), the court granted HomeLight's motion to bifurcate discovery, limiting the next 120 days to discovery on Hopkins's individual TCPA Do Not Call claims. Class-wide discovery is on hold until the court rules on summary judgment.
What is driving the FDCPA/TCPA class action against the debt collector?
AccountsRecovery.net's October 9 digest reports a collector facing an FDCPA and TCPA class action over calls allegedly placed after the consumer made a verbal cease request.

Check your own numbers against this

Why are my calls showing as spam likely? · What share of phone numbers are VOIP? · How many numbers are invalid or disconnected?