You buy a car and drive it home. A week later, your phone starts buzzing with offers to "save up to 25%" on insurance you never shopped for. That is the situation in Miller v. S. Brown & Associates, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01480-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2026). There, the Court denied a motion to dismiss a putative TCPA Do Not Call class action on every ground the defendant raised.
The defendant administers car insurance programs for car dealerships. When the plaintiff bought her vehicle, the defendant allegedly took what it learned from the dealership (her name, phone number, vehicle, and the exact date her temporary coverage would end) and texted her DNC-registered cell phone with pitches for longer-term insurance. The plaintiff never applied for insurance with the defendant, never asked for a quote, and never contacted it.
The defendant's main argument was that it had an established business relationship with the plaintiff because her purchase "ran through [the defendant's] own infrastructure." The Court didn't buy it. The rule requires a "voluntary two-way communication" based on the consumer's own "purchase or transaction with the entity."
Here, the dealership placed the coverage, and the plaintiff never dealt with the defendant insurance company at all. The Court relied on Abboud v. Circle K Stores Inc., where a relationship with a third party "did not involve any purchase, . . . or application by Plaintiff herself."
The defendant also argued the complaint didn't show it actually sent the texts. But the messages allegedly contained information that "[o]nly Defendant and the originating dealership" had. They referenced the temporary coverage program the defendant administers and arrived just as that coverage was set to expire. Citing Miholich v. Senior Life Insurance Co. and Ragsdale v. Leadpoint, Inc., the Court found this was more than a "bare allegation" and was enough to plead direct liability.
And yes, the defendant tried Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, 182 F.4th 532 (7th Cir. 2026). The Court explained that adopting it would mean rejecting Howard v. Republican National Committee, 164 F.4th 1119 (9th Cir. 2026), and Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009). As the Court noted, quoting Hart v. Massanari, circuit law "binds all courts within a particular circuit."
In the Ninth Circuit, texts are calls. The Court also declined to certify the question for immediate appeal.
Clean and simple. The plaintiff had never directly dealt with the Defendant insurance company, so she obviously did not have an established business relationship with them for TCPA purposes.
