Texas TCPA Case Law
Key court decisions shaping telemarketing compliance in Texas
Total Decisions
28
Landmark (8+)
21
Notable (5-7)
7
Most Recent
May 2026
What These Cases Impact
Landmark Decisions (Score 8-10)
Ecommerce Marketers Alliance, Inc. v. State of Texas
W.D. Tex. · November 2025
Holding
Stipulated dismissal confirming that businesses operating consent-based text message marketing campaigns are specifically exempted from Chapter 302 registration and bond requirements. The court adopted language stating that "a call, as that term is used in Chapter 302, incorporates Chapter 304's exemption for a transmission made to a mobile telephone number as part of an ad-based telephone service, in connection with which the telephone service customer has agreed with the service provider to receive the transmission." Consent-based SMS marketing does not require Chapter 302 registration.
Plain English
The most important Texas telemarketing case of 2025. After SB 140 expanded Ch. 302 to cover text messages, the e-commerce industry feared that every business sending marketing texts would need to register with the Secretary of State and post a $10,000 bond. This settlement resolved the ambiguity: if you have prior consumer consent for your texts, you are exempt from registration. The Texas Secretary of State updated its guidance accordingly. This does NOT exempt unsolicited text marketers — those operations must still register, bond, and face full DTPA liability.
Thompson v. Dealer Renewal Services
N.D. Tex. · November 2021
Holding
Default judgment awarding $221,500 for 28 calls ($8,000 per call). Each call violated two federal TCPA sections and Texas Bus. & Com. Code § 302.101, allowing stacked damages from both federal and state law. The court determined that calls made using an ATDS or prerecorded voice without consent violated both TCPA § 227(b)(1)(iii) and Texas state registration requirements independently, permitting cumulative per-call damages.
Plain English
The case that proves Texas per-call math is devastating. 28 calls. $221,500. Each unauthorized call triggered violations under two different TCPA sections AND Texas state law, allowing the court to stack damages. While this was a default judgment (defendant did not appear), the per-call calculation applies regardless. For companies making automated calls to Texas consumers without consent, the exposure is not just federal TCPA damages — Texas law adds a separate layer of per-call liability that multiplies total exposure.
In Re Richard Gonzales v. the State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · May 2026
Robert Day v. Southside Bank
Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · May 2026
Dominique Cunningham v. Teneshia Hudspeth
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · May 2026
Karrie Key v. Tiffany Condominium Owners Association, Inc.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 2026
Allan Roy Manka and the Law Offices of Allan R. Manka, P.C. v. Michelle Teresa Acosta
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · May 2026
Jason Murray Davis and Davis & Santos, P.C. v. Graham Weston, Carowest Land Ltd.; Graham Weston as Trustee of Countyline Land Trust; And Kuehler Road, LLC F/K/A Kuehler Road, Ltd.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · April 2026
Joshua Calloway v. Mark Gritton and Linda Gritton
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · April 2026
Foley & Lardner LLP, Successor-In-Interest to Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP, Timothy Spear, James G. Munesteri, and Sharon M. Beausoleil v. Stephen H. Dernick and David D. Dernick
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · April 2026
Diogu Kaqlu Diogu II v. Commision for Lawyer Discipline
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · April 2026
Allison Camille Lartigue A/K/A Allison C. Lartigue, LLC and the Freelance Paralegal, LLC v. Karleana L. Farias
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · April 2026
Transportes Juan Chavez, S.A. De C v. v. Maribel Deharo, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Hipolito Deharo, Yvette Del Rio and Pedro Deharo
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · April 2026
RPM Services v. Maribel Mata Santana, Jose Leonel Mata, Jr., Jose Leonel Mata, 181 South Homes Incorporated, Ricardo Canales
Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · April 2026
Corey Morrell v. Burton Baker, Individually and in His Professional Capacity, Lummus, Hallman, Pritchard & Baker, P.C., and Mercer Transportation Co., Inc.
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · March 2026
Chad Pinkerton and the Pinkerton Law Firm, PLLC v. Mark Keough
Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · March 2026
Raggio-2204 Jesse Owens, LLC and Stacey R. Hammer v. Wayne Morgan; David M. Gottfried; J. Patrick Sutton; Stewart Title of Austin, LLC; Bockholt Realty, LLC; Brent Bockholt; And Susan Bockholt
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · March 2026
Elon Musk v. Benjamin Brody
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · March 2026
Vishal Nemarugommula, M.D. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, LLC, Baptist Medical Center, Sowjanya Mohan, M.D., Dimple Butler, M.D., Kimberly Mallery, M.D., and Physician Services, LLC
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · March 2026
State of Texas et al. v. Rising Eagle Capital Group LLC et al.
S.D. Tex. · March 2023
Holding
Stipulated order entering monetary judgments totaling $244,658,640 against Rising Eagle Capital Group LLC and its principals (John Caldwell Spiller II and Jakob Mears) for making approximately 1 billion spoofed robocalls during the first four-and-a-half months of 2019. Defendants permanently banned from initiating or facilitating robocalls, working with robocall companies, and engaging in any telemarketing. Judgment largely suspended due to inability to pay but permanent operational bans enforced.
Plain English
The largest telemarketing judgment in Texas history and one of the largest nationally. The multi-state AG coalition demonstrated that coordinated enforcement can produce massive judgments even when defendants cannot pay — the permanent operational bans are the real enforcement teeth. Spiller allegedly continued robocalling under aliases after the judgment, prompting additional contempt proceedings in 2024. The case established that Texas participates actively in multi-state robocall enforcement coalitions.
Cordoba v. DIRECTV LLC
5th Cir. · March 2020
Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that consent obtained through a third-party lead generator for "marketing partners" does not constitute valid prior express consent for a specific company's telemarketing calls under TCPA. While this is a federal TCPA decision rather than a Texas mini-TCPA case, it establishes the consent standard applied by courts in the Fifth Circuit (covering Texas) and directly impacts the validity of purchased lead lists for Texas telemarketing operations.
Plain English
The Fifth Circuit's consent standard case for Texas. Third-party lead consent naming "marketing partners" is not valid consent for your company's calls. This decision predated the FCC's January 2025 one-to-one consent rule but reached the same conclusion: each company needs its own specific consent. For Texas operations, this means purchased lead lists where consent was obtained for a different company are legally unusable for automated outreach — both under federal TCPA (per this ruling) and now under Texas DTPA (per SB 140).
Notable Decisions (Score 5-7)
John P. Boerschig v. Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Texas Supreme Court · May 2026 · Busby; Devine; Young; Sullivan; Hawkins; Hawkins; Bland; Blacklock; Lehrmann; Huddle
K&K Inez Properties, LLC, David Kucera, and Valerie Kucera v. Clay Kolle and Lacy Kolle
Texas Supreme Court · May 2026 · Huddle
Sadie Weldon v. the Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity
Texas Supreme Court · May 2026 · Busby
In re: SB 140 Private Right of Action — Anticipated Litigation Trends
N/A — Legislative analysis · September 2025
Holding
SB 140 effective September 1, 2025 created a new DTPA-based private right of action for violations of Chapters 302 and 304. Key provisions: (1) statutory damages of $500 per violation; (2) up to $1,500 for willful violations; (3) DTPA treble damages for knowing/intentional conduct; (4) mental anguish damages; (5) mandatory attorneys' fees; (6) explicit provision that prior recovery does not limit future claims against same defendant. No published court decisions yet interpreting SB 140 private right of action provisions as of the effective date.
Plain English
SB 140 is expected to generate significant private litigation in Texas starting in late 2025 and 2026. The DTPA private right of action removes procedural barriers that previously limited consumer lawsuits for telemarketing violations. The explicit "no cap on repeat recovery" provision is particularly aggressive — it signals legislative intent to enable serial litigants. Combined with mandatory attorneys' fees, the economics favor plaintiff-side telemarketing litigation in Texas. Class action certification under the DTPA for systematic telemarketing violations (e.g., text blast campaigns) is anticipated. Watch for the first published decision interpreting SB 140's DTPA integration.
State of Texas v. Kevin J. Calvin
N.D. Tex. · June 2019
Holding
Texas AG filed contempt motion against Calvin for violating a 2015 permanent injunction that prohibited him from placing robocalls without consent and calling Texas No-Call list numbers. Calvin continued making thousands of robocalls to Texas residents including DNC-registered numbers despite the court order. Court issued show cause order; proceedings escalated toward potential arrest for criminal contempt.
Plain English
One of the rare telemarketing cases that approached criminal consequences. Calvin violated a 2015 permanent injunction by continuing thousands of robocalls. The AG sought contempt, and the court escalated to show cause with potential arrest. This case demonstrates that Texas courts will pursue criminal contempt against repeat telemarketing violators — not just civil fines. For serial offenders, a prior injunction converts future violations from civil liability into potential incarceration.
BARBER, GRADY JACK v. the State of Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 2026
TX AG v. Retalia Alliance LLC
Texas District Court · November 2023
Holding
Texas AG obtained injunction and penalties against operation making millions of illegal robocalls to Texas consumers.
Plain English
Texas AG enforcement action resulting in injunction against mass illegal robocall operation.
Compare Case Law across states
Federal TCPA is the floor. Each state can — and many do — go further.
Stay Current
Weekly compliance digest
New enforcement actions, statute updates, and rule changes — delivered once a week. Know what changed before your next dial session.
Compliance, built in
Need an AI workforce that knows the rules?
Chief is the AI workforce for real estate operators. Calling, texting, and follow-up that respects Texas consent requirements, calling hours, and DNC rules without you babysitting the dialer.
See Chief →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 →