Here's a case that was ultimately dismissed but the court still dropped some good language in the order.
In Shelton v. Empwr Solar LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172759 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2026), a consumer sued a solar marketer over a telemarketing call and a text that he says landed on a number that had been on the National Do-Not-Call registry since 2015. The outreach came through the usual layered setup — the company had contracted with a couple of third-party marketing vendors — but the caller reportedly identified the pitch as coming straight from the company itself. So far, so familiar.
The defendant moved for summary judgment. Its argument wasn't "we didn't call" or "the text doesn't count." It was narrower, and honestly a little strange: the plaintiff never actually put any evidence in the record showing his number was on the do not call registry.
In response, the plaintiff pointed to his complaint, saying his "telephone records, as reproduced in the Complaint" confirmed the DNC listing. When the company asked for the actual registration, he promised he "will produce a copy of his do not call registry registration, and any telephone screen captures, within a reasonable time not to exceed thirty days." Except according to the court, he never did.
The Court was firm on the mechanics. A complaint isn't evidence. At summary judgment you need "a document, sworn affidavit, or declaration on the record," and leaning on "an unsworn, self-serving statement" doesn't get there (compare Paladino v. Newsome, 885 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2018), where sworn deposition testimony was enough to survive — the mirror image of what happened here).
With the registry element unproven, "all other facts are immaterial," and summary judgment went to the defendant. Basically, if the Plaintiff can't show his number was even registered on the DNC registry, his whole claim falls apart, so of course he's going to lose the case.
DNC registration is about the easiest fact in the entire TCPA universe to establish. A number's status is something anyone can check online in seconds. So it makes me wonder what was actually going on here.
THE GOOD NEWS:
There's still a consolation prize for the plaintiff's bar, though, because the Court dropped a nice little reaffirmation on its way out. It stated:
"The TCPA and its implementing regulations, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, prohibit telephonesolicitation to residential subscribers who have registered with the NDNCregistry. The TCPA provides a private right of action for "a person"who received "more than one telephone call within a 12-month period by oron behalf of the same entity." 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). The statute should be read broadly to incorporate that a text message is a"call" for the purposes of 47 U.S.C. § 227." citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016).
Translation: a spam text still carries a DNC claim, full stop. That principle came through intact — it just needed a plaintiff with the receipts.
So the defendant didn't win the argument that it could send texts to a do-not-call number. It won because the Plaintiff couldnt demonstrate that his number actually was on the registry.
