Federal judge runs interfearance for telemarketer
- Peter Schneider
- Jul 1
- 4 min read
Judges all too often use their power to protect telemarketers and here is what appears another blatant example. Luckau v. Sunrun, 2025 WL 1797249 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2025).
Mr. Luckau alleges that he registered his phone number on the national do not call registry, and then he received two unsolicited calls that resulted in two voicemails saying:
Hello this is Christine with Solar America responding to your request for information on solar energy for your home. We needed a brief moment to verify the information that you submitted, and we’ll try to reach you again shortly or feel free to call us back at 1-800-680-8554. Again, that number is 1-800-680-8554. We look forward to speaking with you.
Mr. Luckau sued, in part under 47 U.S.C. § 64.1200(d)(4), one of the regulations promulgated under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, because the caller identified the entity as “Solar America,” instead of Sunrun.
Sunrun came back with a motion to dismiss, but on its own, the court injected its own argument:
Neither party considers that the requirement to identify “the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made,” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4), is part of the TCPA’s requirement to maintain an internal do-not-call list. Section 64.1200(d) provides, “No person or entity shall initiate . . . any call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive such calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). The identification requirement is one of the “minimum standards” that the instituted procedures must satisfy. Luckau does not allege that he ever requested to be placed on Defendants’ internal do-not call list. He therefore appears to lack standing to assert a claim for violation of Section 64.1200(d)(4) because “even if Defendants had complied with the TCPA and maintained an internal do-not-call list [that complied with all of the regulatory requirements], their compliance would not have prevented a call to [Luckau] because he would not have been on that list.”
Courts have generally held that you can't sue a telemarketer under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) for not having instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive such calls, unless you requested to not be called.
The argument being, you weren't harmed by their not having do-not-call-list procedures if you didn't ask to be on the list. This judge is trying to extend this to say that you can't sue telemarketers for not identifying who they are, unless you already asked the telemarketer [that you don't know who they are] to not call you.
As a rule, a) how are you going to ask a telemarketer not to call you if you don't know who they are? Telemarketers will say, tell the agent on the phone! This case illustrates the fallacy of that argument. How was Mr. Luckau going to tell a phone recording to put him on their do-not-call list?
2) If you don't know who the telemarketer is calling for, how do you know for sure you want to be on their do-not-call list? Telemarketers tell us that these calls are vital to getting Americans the products and services they need. So I have to tell unknown callers to not call me before they are legally obligated to identify themselves when they call me again? It's a strained readying of the law.
3) If I tell an unknown caller to not call me again, how will people know if the caller calls back using a different fake name and script?
The identification requirement is in the law so that consumers can pick and choose who they want to hear from again, and who they want to banish from their phone. This court wants to turn it around - you have to banish first and then wonder if it was, as telemarketers claim, a caller vital to getting Americans the products and services they need.
Sunrun harmed Mr. Luckau by not identifying who they were, so Mr. Luckau could make an informed decision as to whether or not he wanted further calls from Sunrun. In fact this court is so arragant, it argues against their own position by citing Thompson v. Vintage Stock, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00042-SRC, 2024 WL 492052 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 8, 2024)
finding no standing where the plaintiffs did not “allege in their complaint that they asked Vintage Stock to place them on its internal do-not-call list, or even that they asked Vintage Stock not to contact them” because, “even if Vintage Stock had done everything the Thompsons complain it failed to do,” the plaintiffs “would have suffered the exact same harm”);
The Thompson v. Vintage Stock, Inc case doesn't show that those plaintiffs ever didn't know who the caller was, or that they asserted a § 64.1200(d)(4) claim. And then goes on to gut its own position completely with Dawson v. Porch.com, No. 2:20-cv-00604-RSL, 2024 WL 4765159 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2024) and Robison v. 7PN, LLC, 569 F. Supp. 3d 1175, 1184–85 (D. Utah 2021):
if a telemarketing text message lacked any identifying information (and thus violated Section 64.1200(d)(4)), the recipient would be unable to figure out how to opt out of receiving future messages, and all the while the mysterious telemarketer could continue bombarding the consumer with spam texts with no fear of legal reprisal. Such a holding would thwart Section 64.1200(d)(4), which is meant to aid consumers in stopping unwanted telemarketing calls and texts.
I believe this is a winning issue on appeal in the ninth circuit, so another illustration of why you might some day need an appellant lawyer.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve had similar problems with telemarketers, debt collectors, bankruptcy-related harassment, or even general legal related issues, we might research and feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.
Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington or Oregon?
I handle TCPA lawsuits in Washington State and Oregon, and may be able to help.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you're thinking of suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.
Comments