New York TCPA Case Law
Key court decisions shaping telemarketing compliance in New York
Total Decisions
6
Landmark (8+)
3
Notable (5-7)
3
Most Recent
Nov 2024
What These Cases Impact
Landmark Decisions (Score 8-10)
Aley v. Lightfire Partners, LLC
N.D.N.Y. · August 2024 · Judge Anne M. Nardacci
Holding
TCPA class certified for 62,225 proposed members whose DNC-registered numbers received telemarketing calls based on consent obtained through a third-party website (Myjobscorner.com via Connexus Digital). Court found common questions predominated — if consent procedures were inadequate under the law, that determination would apply uniformly to the class, rendering individual assessments moot. Numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy all satisfied.
Plain English
The lead generation industry's worst nightmare, decided in the Northern District of New York. 62,225-member class certified against Lightfire Partners for calling DNC numbers based on consent obtained by a third-party website. The court's reasoning: if the consent process itself was legally deficient, that deficiency applies to every single class member — no need for individualized inquiry. This case validates the FCC's one-to-one consent rule and demonstrates that purchasing leads with third-party consent creates massive class action exposure. If you bought the list, you own the liability.
Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Vehicles, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · September 2024 · Judge Lorna G. Schofield
Holding
TCPA consent must be "clearly and unmistakably granted" and the consumer must understand they are agreeing to receive telephone advertisements. Consent can grant permission to a party and its affiliates or non-parties only if the consent makes clear who is granted permission. Consent obtained by one entity cannot be transferred to another entity — the consumer must specifically consent to calls from the entity that will be calling.
Plain English
Critical S.D.N.Y. ruling establishing that TCPA consent cannot be transferred between entities. If a consumer consented to calls from Company A, Company B cannot use that consent to justify its own calls — even if Company B purchased the lead list from Company A. Consent must be "clearly and unmistakably granted" with the consumer understanding exactly who will call them. This decision predates but perfectly aligns with the FCC one-to-one consent rule (Jan 2025). Lead list purchasers: your purchased consent is worthless unless it specifically named your company.
State of Ohio et al. v. Avid Telecom Inc. et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · May 2023
Holding
Forty-nine state AGs, including NY AG James, filed suit against Avid Telecom for facilitating 24.5 billion illegal robocalls. The complaint alleged Avid knowingly routed calls for telemarketing campaigns that were predominantly scams — impersonating utilities, Medicare, Amazon, and financial services. Avid facilitated over 7.5 billion calls to DNC-registered numbers and ignored repeated notifications of illegal activity.
Plain English
The landmark 49-AG coalition action against a robocall carrier. Avid Telecom facilitated 24.5 billion calls over four years, with 7.5 billion to DNC numbers. The case establishes that voice service providers are not passive conduits — they share liability for knowingly routing illegal telemarketing traffic. NY AG James was a leading participant. The upstream enforcement strategy targets the infrastructure enabling illegal calls, creating compliance obligations for carriers, not just callers. This is the future of robocall enforcement: follow the call routing, not just the caller.
Notable Decisions (Score 5-7)
Cacho v. McCarthy & Kelly LLP
S.D.N.Y. · July 2024
Holding
Post-Chevron decision examining TCPA requirements for unsolicited telemarketing calls to DNC-registered cell phones. Court independently interpreted the TCPA's statutory language without deference to FCC interpretations following Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024). Found that the TCPA's plain text prohibits unsolicited telemarketing calls to numbers on the National DNC Registry regardless of the technology used to place the call.
Plain English
First significant post-Chevron TCPA decision in the Southern District of New York. After the Supreme Court eliminated Chevron deference in Loper Bright (2024), courts must independently interpret the TCPA rather than deferring to FCC rules. This S.D.N.Y. decision found the TCPA's plain text independently supports DNC protections — the statutory text is clear enough that the loss of Chevron deference does not weaken DNC enforcement. Important for compliance: the TCPA's core prohibitions survive even without FCC interpretive deference.
In re Legal Growth Marketing Inc. (DOS Consent Order)
NY Department of State Administrative Proceeding · November 2024
Holding
Department of State found violations of GBL § 399-z including failure to comply with do-not-call requirements and disclosure obligations. Respondent agreed to $50,000 civil penalty and three-year compliance monitoring. Department retained authority to reopen investigation if respondent violated consent order or telemarketing laws during the monitoring period.
Plain English
While technically an administrative proceeding rather than a court decision, NY DOS consent orders function as enforcement precedent. This $50,000 penalty for GBL § 399-z violations demonstrates that the Department of State is an active enforcement body — not just a registration office. The three-year monitoring requirement adds ongoing compliance obligations. DOS investigations are complaint-driven and require rapid production of call records, scrubbing documentation, and internal DNC list evidence.
NY AG v. Leads Inc.
New York Supreme Court · March 2024
Holding
NY AG settlement over deceptive lead generation practices involving unauthorized consent harvesting for telemarketing.
Plain English
NY AG settled with lead gen company over unauthorized consent harvesting for telemarketing purposes.
Stay Current
Weekly digest: what changed this week
New enforcement actions, statute updates, and rule changes in New York — delivered once a week.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Powered by Brevo.
Need help getting compliant?
Case law changes what's legal faster than most compliance teams can track. Catalyst Partners monitors New York decisions and updates your operations accordingly.
Book a Compliance Call →This is a compliance reference tool, not legal advice. Data compiled from public statutes, LegiScan, CourtListener, state AG offices, and AI-assisted analysis. Verify all information with qualified counsel before relying on it. Full terms & data sources →