Reported / Citable
Background
Fredrick Uwagbai sued Credence Resource Management, LLC for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by calling his number on February 25, 2026, after he had registered with the national do-not-call registry. Uwagbai’s call log showed a single missed call from Credence Resource at 12:48 p.m., followed by two outgoing calls from Uwagbai to Credence Resource at 1:01 p.m. and 2:33 p.m. Audio recordings of the conversations revealed that Credence Resource was attempting to reach “Crosby Uwagbai,” the plaintiff’s deceased father, and the conversations consisted of Uwagbai requesting to be placed on Credence Resource’s do-not-call list and asking for the company’s mailing address. Credence Resource moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to state a claim as a matter of law.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding that Uwagbai failed to plead facts sufficient to state a TCPA violation. The TCPA private right of action under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) requires that a plaintiff receive “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period” that constitutes a “telephone solicitation.” A “telephone solicitation” is defined as a call made “for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services.”
The court identified two independent grounds for dismissal. First, Uwagbai received only one call initiated by Credence Resource—the missed call—not more than one as the statute requires. The subsequent calls originated from Uwagbai himself. Second, the audio recordings established that the single call was not a “telephone solicitation” because Credence Resource was attempting to locate a specific individual (the plaintiff’s father) regarding what appeared to be a debt collection or similar matter, not encouraging the purchase or rental of property, goods, or services. The court noted that even assuming the missed call qualified as a solicitation, it was the only such call placed by Credence Resource.
Key Takeaways
- The TCPA’s private right of action requires receipt of more than one telephone solicitation call within a 12-month period; a single call, even if otherwise improper, cannot support a claim.
- A call does not qualify as a “telephone solicitation” under the TCPA merely because it violates the do-not-call registry; the call must be made for the purpose of encouraging purchase, rental, or investment in property, goods, or services.
- Calls made to locate or contact a specific individual on other business matters do not constitute “telephone solicitations” under the TCPA’s statutory definition.
- Calls initiated by the plaintiff himself in response to a missed call are not “telephone calls” placed by the defendant within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies important limitations on TCPA private litigation. While the TCPA protects consumers on the do-not-call registry, that protection applies only to “telephone solicitations”—a defined term requiring solicitation of commercial transactions. Businesses attempting to reach individuals for non-commercial purposes (debt collection, locating debtors, customer service) are not necessarily subject to TCPA liability merely for calling registered numbers. Additionally, the requirement of “more than one” call creates a meaningful threshold; isolated calls, however improper, do not generate TCPA liability.
For defendants, the ruling reinforces that dismissal is appropriate when the complaint alleges only a single call or when the content of the calls clearly demonstrates the calls were not commercial solicitations. The court’s analysis suggests that debt collectors and similar businesses should carefully document the non-solicitation nature of their calls and that courts will examine the actual content of conversations to determine whether a call constitutes a “telephone solicitation” as defined by statute.