It’s been another eventful week in the TCPA world! A recent Middle District of Florida ruling has established that there is no private right of action for national DNC claims.
In Internicola v. MortgagePros, LLC, No. 6:25-CV-01613-AGM-LHP (M.D. Fla. September 24, 2026), plaintiff Daniel Internicola had originally registered his number on the DNC Registry in 2008. However, in April 2025 he engaged with the defendant MortgagePros to refinance his mortgage. The relationship broke down and he withdrew his consent to be contacted by MortgagePros on July 1, 2025. Within the next 10 days MortgagePros called or texted Internicola just over a dozen times, leading to the present lawsuit. MortgagePros moved to dismiss, bringing a number of arguments which included the contention that Section 227(c)(5) does not provide a private right of action for violations of Section 227(c).
While analyzing this argument, the court noted that when the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the TCPA in 1992, the proposed rulemaking did not involve adoption of a national do-not-call registry. Rather, the FCC instead required companies who engaged in telemarketing to maintain their own internal do-not-call lists. It was not until 2003 that the National DNC Registry rules were adopted. In March 2003, Congress enacted the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, which lead the FCC to establish the National DNC Registry.
After considering the plain text of Section 227(c)(5), the court concluded that the term “regulations prescribed under this subsection” could be interpreted in the context of Section 227(c)(2). Crucially, Section 227(c)(2) provides that rulemaking proceedings under Section 227(c) must have been concluded “[n]ot later than 9 months after December 20, 1991.” From a textualist standpoint, this language makes it obvious that 227(c)(5) does not provide a private right of action under any regulation that was not prescribed by September 20, 1992.
Running in the same textualist vein, the court also agreed that texts are not “calls” under 227(c)(5). This has been a longstanding development in Florida which we have covered extensively.
All in all, a pretty interesting decision. Internicola did file a motion for reconsideration, so we’ll be sure to update you if there are any future changes.
In the meantime – stay compliant, and stay safe.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]