Where legal commentary meets bar banter. 🍷
Opinions, soapboxes, legal hot takes, and more. Taproom Talk is where we raise a glass and a few eyebrows about everything wrong (and sometimes right) in consumer law.
The Rise of Quiet Hours TCPA Lawsuits
Why Timing Is Becoming the Next Battleground
Why Timing Is Becoming the Next Battleground
Why Timing Is Becoming the Next Battleground
09/08/25- Most people know the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) as the federal law that cracks down on robocalls and unwanted texts. But there’s another piece of the statute that’s suddenly driving lawsuits: the clock.
Under TCPA rules, businesses may not send telemarketing calls or texts before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. in the recipient’s local time. For years, litigation focused almost entirely on consent — whether companies had permission to contact consumers. Now, a new wave of lawsuits is highlighting violations of “Quiet Hours.”
Recent Case Filings Highlight the Shift
Why Timing Is Becoming the Next Battleground
Why Timing Is Becoming the Next Battleground
In the past week alone, several class actions were filed alleging that businesses sent texts or calls too early in the morning or too late at night, including:
- Watler v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants (C.D. Cal.) – Plaintiff alleged late-night telemarketing texts from the fast-food chain.
- Murrietta v. Bioverse Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Claims of texts received outside permitted hours.
- Merrill v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co. (C.D. Cal.) – Messages sent before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. disrupting privacy.
- Davalos v. Dango Products LLC (C.D. Cal.) – Complaint centers on promotional texts sent during Quiet Hours.
- Bush v. Left On Friday Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Plaintiff alleges multiple nighttime texts intruding on peace and quiet.
The common thread? All argue that companies ignored TCPA’s time-of-day restrictions.
Why Quiet Hours Matter
Why Timing Is Becoming the Next Battleground
Why Quiet Hours Matter
The TCPA was enacted in 1991, when intrusive dinnertime robocalls were the main complaint. Congress specifically wrote in time-of-day restrictions to protect consumer privacy during rest hours. Violating these rules can be costly:
- $500 per illegal call/text
- $1,500 per willful violation
If a company sends thousands of messages during restricted hours, damages can balloon into the millions.
Why Now?
Business Implications
Why Quiet Hours Matter
So why the sudden focus on Quiet Hours in 2025?
Several reasons:
- Mass Texting Growth – Businesses shifted heavily to SMS and app-based promotions. Automated campaigns sometimes misfire on time zones.
- Class Action Strategy – Plaintiffs’ attorneys see Quiet Hours as a clear-cut, easy-to-prove violation that doesn’t require complex arguments over consent.
- Consumer Frustration – Late-night and early-morning pings are seen as especially invasive, making juries more sympathetic.
Business Implications
Business Implications
Business Implications
For companies, these lawsuits are a wake-up call. It’s not enough to simply get consent or offer an opt-out. Timing must be programmed correctly.
Mistakes happen when:
- Text campaigns are set on Eastern Time but blast to West Coast phones at 5 a.m.
- Vendors or marketing partners fail to sync time-zone data.
- Systems don’t distinguish between promotional and transactional messages.
Even if consumers consented, a single 6 a.m. coupon text could trigger a lawsuit.
Consumer Takeaway
Business Implications
Business Implications
For consumers, this litigation trend is encouraging. It shows courts are enforcing the TCPA in ways that reflect modern life. Everyone knows how disruptive a 2 a.m. buzz on your phone can be. If you’re receiving promotional calls or texts outside legal hours, you may have a claim. Keeping screenshots of timestamps and call logs can help preserve evidence.
Looking Ahead
Looking Ahead
Looking Ahead
Quiet Hours cases are likely to grow in 2025 and beyond. Courts may soon address questions like:
- Does a message scheduled at 8:01 a.m. in one time zone but received at 7:01 a.m. elsewhere violate TCPA?
- How much responsibility falls on third party texting platforms vs. the brand itself?
Until then, businesses face rising exposure, and consumers gain another shield against unwanted intrusions.
Conclusion
Looking Ahead
Looking Ahead
- The Quiet Hours provision of the TCPA has been around for over 30 years, but only now is it emerging as a litigation hotspot. For companies, it’s a compliance nightmare. For consumers, it’s a reminder that privacy matters not just in what messages are sent — but also in when.
- How much responsibility falls on third-party texting platforms vs. the brand itself?
Until then, businesses face rising exposure, and consumers gain another shield against unwanted intrusions.
When J.B. Hunt Transport Services recently agreed to pay $5 million to settle claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the headlines focused on the size of the settlement. But the deeper story—one that affects millions of job seekers each year—got far less attention.
At issue was J.B. Hunt’s alleged failure to provide job applicants and employees with a copy of their background check and a summary of their rights before taking adverse employment action. That is, the company may have rejected or fired people based on reports they never had a chance to review, let alone dispute.
For those who think this is just a technical misstep or an isolated case, think again. This is not a one-off. This is a flashing red light warning us about how quietly and pervasively due process is being stripped from the hiring process—often through automated systems, third-party screeners, and legally questionable shortcuts.
A System Without Appeals
The FCRA was designed to protect consumers by requiring transparency and fairness when employers use background reports. The law mandates that before someone is denied a job because of such a report, they must receive:
- A copy of the report, and
- A summary of their rights under the FCRA.
Why? Because background checks are notoriously error-prone. Reports may contain outdated, sealed, or inaccurate information. And when that happens, the consequences are swift and often permanent. The job offer disappears. The interview process ends. And the individual may never know why.
When employers like J.B. Hunt skip these steps, they’re not just breaking the law. They’re denying people the chance to correct mistakes that could derail their livelihoods.
Discrimination by Proxy
Background checks, particularly criminal history screenings, disproportionately harm communities of color, who have long been overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Even minor offenses from years ago—some of them later expunged—can appear on reports and silently block access to employment.
Add to that the rise of automated hiring systems that reject applicants based on checkboxes, keywords, or background flags with no human review, and you have a digital gatekeeping system that locks people out of jobs without explanation, appeal, or context.
The result? A two-tiered employment system. One for the "clean" candidate—and another for those with even minor blemishes, regardless of their relevance or recency.
Employers Must Do Better
Employers often outsource the dirty work to background check vendors, assuming legal liability ends there. It doesn’t. Under the FCRA, the hiring company is still responsible. And frankly, they should be. No one should be denied a job based on information they never saw and never had the chance to correct.
It’s time for companies to rethink how they use background checks—not just because of legal exposure, but because of what fairness demands. That means:
- Ensuring reports are accurate and relevant.
- Providing copies of reports before taking action.
- Giving candidates the chance to explain or dispute findings.
- Rejecting "one-size-fits-all" disqualification policies.
Toward a Fairer Future
The J.B. Hunt settlement should be a wake-up call, not just for corporate legal departments, but for policymakers, civil rights advocates, and consumers. As long as employment decisions are outsourced to black-box systems and faceless screeners, millions will be denied opportunity without due process.
America believes in second chances. Our hiring systems should reflect that.
What Wilson v. Reprise Means for Consumers
10 TCPA Trends to Watch in 2025–2026
A recent Oregon federal decision in Wilson v. Skopos Financial (Reprise Financial) treated unwanted text messages much like unwanted calls under the Do‑Not‑Call (DNC) rules. That’s a consumer‑friendly signal. Expect more lawsuits targeting mass texting, sharper consent rules, and growing pressure on companies to respect opt‑outs—fast.
1) Text Messages Are (Increasingly) Treated Like Calls
What changed: Courts are more willing to read the TCPA’s DNC protections to cover SMS and similar text formats, not just voice calls.
Why it matters: If you’re on the National DNC Registry and you get marketing texts you didn’t consent to, your claim is on stronger footing in more courts—especially where judges lean toward consumer privacy protections.
Consumer takeaway: Register your number on the Do‑Not‑Call Registry and keep screenshots of unwanted texts. They may be actionable.
2) “Misdirected” or “Accidental” Texts Won’t Excuse Violations
What changed: Courts are showing less patience when companies blame wrong numbers, recycled numbers, or clerical mix‑ups.
Why it matters: Businesses that rely on outdated lists or “intended for someone else” messages are seeing less sympathy at the pleading stage.
Consumer takeaway: If a text is clearly meant for someone else (e.g., “Hi Brian, finish your loan…”), document it and opt out. You may still have rights.
9) Data Hygiene and Third‑Party Lists Are Under a Microscope
What changed: Courts look critically at lead generators and data brokers feeding contact lists to brands and lenders.
Why it matters: “We got your number from a vendor” no longer flies if the vendor can’t prove valid, specific consent.
Consumer takeaway: If a sender claims you opted in through a partner, ask for proof. Lack of verifiable consent helps your case.
10) Arbitration Clauses Won’t Always Close the Door
What changed: Many companies push disputes into arbitration via fine‑print terms. But enforceability can hinge on how you allegedly agreed, and what the clause covers.
Why it matters: Courts are scrutinizing assent (did you really agree?), scope (does it cover these texts?), and unconscionability.
Consumer takeaway: Don’t assume you have no options because of an arbitration clause. Ask a lawyer to evaluate the specific terms.
What Consumers Should Do Right Now
- Document everything: screenshots of texts, date/time, sender name/short code, and your opt‑out message.
- Revoke consent clearly: “I revoke consent. STOP texting me.” Keep proof.
- Watch your carrier bill for any unusual charges related to premium messages.
- Consider a complaint with the FCC and/or your state attorney general if messages continue.
- Consult a consumer lawyer if you’re getting repeated, unwanted texts—especially if you’re on the DNC list or never consented.
Signals to Watch in 2025–2026
- Further court decisions clarifying whether DNC rules cover texts across circuits.
- FCC guidance or rulemaking addressing texts, RCS, lead‑generation, and opt‑out mechanics.
- State law updates tightening quiet hours, consent standards, and penalties.
- Industry shifts toward double opt‑in, short‑code registration, and real‑time suppression lists to avoid repeat violations.
Quick FAQ
Q: I’m on the Do‑Not‑Call Registry. Can a company text me anyway?
A: They need valid, specific consent (and they must honor your opt‑out). Absent that, many courts treat promotional texts to DNC numbers as violations.
Q: What if the text was meant for someone else?
A: That often doesn’t excuse the sender. Misdirected or recycled‑number messages can still violate the law if you didn’t consent.
Q: I typed “STOP,” but the messages kept coming.
A: Save the thread. Each post‑opt‑out text can increase exposure for the sender and strengthen your claim.
Bottom Line
Wilson v. Reprise continues a broader move toward treating texts as protected communications under the TCPA’s DNC framework. For consumers, that’s good news: stronger privacy, clearer consent rules, and more accountability for companies that text first and ask questions later.