
Missed a few posts? No worries—we’ve got your refill ready. Refills & Recaps serves up quick rundowns of everything we’ve been pouring lately: from the latest lemon law twists to robocall smackdowns, credit repair wins, and more. It’s your monthly happy hour flight of updates—no pressure, just the highlights.

10/14/25- A recent decision from the Northern District of California has expanded one of the most important protections consumers have against unwanted marketing: the federal Do-Not-Call rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In Wilson v. MEDVIDI Inc. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2025), the court rejected a telehealth company’s a
10/14/25- A recent decision from the Northern District of California has expanded one of the most important protections consumers have against unwanted marketing: the federal Do-Not-Call rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In Wilson v. MEDVIDI Inc. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2025), the court rejected a telehealth company’s argument that text messages aren’t “calls” under Section 227(c) of the TCPA. The ruling confirms that consumers who register their phone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry are shielded not only from intrusive robocalls, but also from unwanted text message campaigns.

The plaintiff alleged that MEDVIDI, a digital mental health platform, sent him repeated text messages advertising services—even though his number was registered on the federal Do-Not-Call (DNC) list. The company argued that Section 227(c), which prohibits telephone solicitations to numbers on the DNC registry, only applies to calls made t
The plaintiff alleged that MEDVIDI, a digital mental health platform, sent him repeated text messages advertising services—even though his number was registered on the federal Do-Not-Call (DNC) list. The company argued that Section 227(c), which prohibits telephone solicitations to numbers on the DNC registry, only applies to calls made to a residential subscriber, not texts.
The court disagreed. Looking at the plain meaning of “call,” as well as prior rulings interpreting Section 227(b) (which restricts automated dialing), the judge found that Congress intended “call” to include both voice and text-based communications. As the court put it, the modern consumer’s phone is not limited to ringing — “it vibrates, buzzes, and pings,” and that’s enough to trigger the same legal protections.

This ruling matters because it closes a loophole that some companies have tried to exploit. For years, certain marketers argued that “Do Not Call” rules only applied to traditional voice calls — not texts, push alerts, or SMS marketing blasts. Wilson rejects that distinction and reinforces that the TCPA evolves with technology.
For consume
This ruling matters because it closes a loophole that some companies have tried to exploit. For years, certain marketers argued that “Do Not Call” rules only applied to traditional voice calls — not texts, push alerts, or SMS marketing blasts. Wilson rejects that distinction and reinforces that the TCPA evolves with technology.
For consumers, this means:
For companies, the message is equally clear: texting campaigns must comply with all DNC restrictions, not just automated calling rules.

This case reflects how TCPA enforcement is shifting toward modern communication methods. Automated text and chat campaigns, especially in industries like telehealth, retail, and fintech, are now a primary source of consumer complaints. By treating text messages as “calls,” courts are acknowledging that unwanted digital communication can b
This case reflects how TCPA enforcement is shifting toward modern communication methods. Automated text and chat campaigns, especially in industries like telehealth, retail, and fintech, are now a primary source of consumer complaints. By treating text messages as “calls,” courts are acknowledging that unwanted digital communication can be just as invasive as the robocalls Congress sought to curb back in 1991.
This isn’t the first court to reach this conclusion — but Wilson is particularly important because it’s one of the first to apply Section 227(c) (the DNC provision) rather than Section 227(b) (autodialer restrictions). That distinction matters: §227(c) focuses on protecting consumers’ privacy choices, not just technical calling equipment.

Even a few unwanted t
Even a few unwanted texts could represent hundreds or thousands of dollars in statutory damages under the TCPA.

The Wilson v. MEDVIDI decision reaffirms that consumer privacy law isn’t frozen in 1991. Technology changes — but the right to be left alone stays the same. If companies want to reach consumers’ phones, they must first obtain clear consent and respect Do-Not-Call registrations. A text message may feel smaller than a call, but under the law, it now carries the same weight.

Turns out "You’ve got Cash!" texts aren’t always welcome—or legal. Cash App agreed to settle a class action lawsuit for allegedly sending unsolicited marketing texts without users’ permission. Under the TCPA, that’s a $500–$1,500-per-text problem. Now, they’re paying up—$12.5 million worth.
👉 Keep those screenshots, friends. Spam texts might be worth more than your side hustle.

California’s Lemon Law just got watered down. A recent ruling says used car buyers may not be protected, even if their vehicle still has factory warranty left.
Translation: that “certified pre-owned” car with electrical issues? Good luck getting help.
👀 Check your state laws and act fast—because lemons spoil quickly, and so do your rights.

Thanks to McLaughlin v. McKesson, federal courts are no longer required to follow FCC interpretations of the TCPA. That means judges can now decide for themselves what counts as a robocall or “telephone facsimile machine.” It’s a win for clarity… and possibly a recipe for chaos.
📬 We’ll keep you posted as courts start remixing the rules.
Diverging interpretations: With this case (District of Oregon) affirming that texts are covered under § 227(c), while other courts like Jones v. Blackstone (C.D. Ill.) have narrowly excluded texts, we’re seeing a growing split among federal courts.
Impact: This could lead to forum shopping, where plaintiffs choose jurisdictions more favorable to consumer claims.
It also increases the likelihood that the Ninth Circuit (and possibly the Supreme Court) will eventually need to resolve the inconsistency.
Class viability: If texts are recognized as actionable “telephone solicitations,” nationwide class actions alleging Do-Not-Call violations via text become more viable.
Settlement pressure: Defendants may face higher litigation risk, leading to more settlements or revised outreach practices to avoid potential multimillion-dollar statutory damages ($500–$1,500 per text).
The Wilson ruling explicitly deferred to the FCC’s long-standing guidance that TCPA protections apply equally to texts and calls.
This strengthens the Chevron-type deference to regulatory interpretations and may influence other courts to follow FCC rulings rather than rely on narrow textual readings.
Expect the FCC to continue clarifying TCPA coverage of texts, possibly issuing new guidance to eliminate ambiguity.
The case shows courts are willing to protect consumers even when messages are intended for someone else (e.g., “Brian” in Wilson’s complaint).
This signals that lack of intent or accidental texting won’t shield companies from liability, incentivizing: Stricter verification of contact lists, Enhanced opt-out mechanisms, and Reduced reliance on automated texting campaigns.
As courts like the one in Wilson broaden interpretations of TCPA provisions:
More consumer-friendly rulings are likely, especially in privacy-conscious circuits (9th, 2nd).
Tech-based marketing (SMS, RCS, push notifications) could increasingly face TCPA scrutiny, forcing companies to adopt “text consent first” approaches.
However, business-friendly courts may continue limiting TCPA reach, keeping the law in flux until higher courts intervene.
Short term: Expect increased filings in jurisdictions adopting the Wilson reasoning, particularly for Do-Not-Call text violations.
Medium term: The circuit split will likely deepen, prompting either Supreme Court resolution or FCC rulemaking to clarify that texts are covered.
Long term: TCPA may evolve or be amended legislatively to explicitly address SMS and emerging communication technologies, strengthening consumer privacy rights.