New Jersey Court Dismisses TCPA Claims Over Verification Code Texts, Warns Plaintiff of Possible Sanctions

Case Snapshot

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
• Case: Zelma v. Wonder Group Inc.
• Decision Date: May 20, 2026
• Core Issue: Whether two verification code text messages qualified as advertisements or telephone solicitations under the TCPA
• Key Allegation: Plaintiff alleged the texts violated TCPA do-not-call and opt-out notice provisions
• Court Holding: Verification code texts without promotional content are not advertisements under the TCPA
• Outcome: Do-not-call and opt-out notice claims dismissed with prejudice; plaintiff ordered to show cause regarding potential sanctions.
• Notable Detail: Court criticized plaintiff for reasserting legal theories previously rejected and noted allegedly unsupported factual claims

A federal court in New Jersey dismissed Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against food services company Wonder Group Inc., ruling that two verification code text messages did not constitute advertisements or telephone solicitations under the TCPA. The court also ordered the pro se plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for allegedly filing unsupported claims and repeating legal arguments the court had already rejected.

The dispute in Zelma v. Wonder Group Inc. centered on two text messages sent within one minute of each other in November 2024. Each message contained only a verification code and no links, product references, promotional language, or calls to action.

The plaintiff, Richard Zelma, alleged the messages violated several TCPA provisions, including rules tied to the national do-not-call registry and opt-out notice requirements. According to the court, Zelma argued the unexplained verification texts were effectively a “Trojan horse” intended to drive recipients toward Wonder’s products or services.

Court Rejects “Trojan Horse” Advertising Theory

The court relied heavily on Third Circuit precedent from Mauthe v. National Imaging Associates, which established that a communication must directly or indirectly promote the commercial availability of goods or services to qualify as an advertisement under the TCPA.

Judge Evelyn Padin found the verification code messages failed that standard because they contained no promotional content whatsoever. The opinion noted the texts lacked website links, references to products, or any commercial language that could encourage a purchase or transaction.

The court also rejected Zelma’s argument that the cryptic nature of the texts themselves was designed to provoke consumer engagement with Wonder’s website or services. The opinion stated that accepting such reasoning would effectively transform nearly any business communication into a TCPA advertisement claim.

After previously dismissing certain claims with leave to amend, the court found the amended complaint still failed to allege facts showing the texts promoted any goods or services. The claims were dismissed with prejudice, with the court concluding further amendment would be futile.

Court Raises Possibility of Rule 11 Sanctions

The decision also addressed a sanctions request filed by Wonder Group.

While the court denied the defendant’s formal Rule 11 sanctions motion on procedural grounds, it sharply criticized the amended complaint. The opinion described portions of the pleading as “patently inaccurate” and stated Zelma had repackaged legal arguments the court had already expressly rejected.

The court noted defense counsel failed to comply with Rule 11’s procedural requirements, including the 21-day safe harbor provision and separate filing requirements. However, the judge stated the court retains inherent authority to sanction litigants for bad-faith conduct and ordered Zelma to explain why sanctions should not still be imposed.

Why It Matters

The ruling adds to a growing body of TCPA decisions limiting attempts to classify non-promotional operational text messages as advertisements.

For businesses using verification codes, authentication texts, or similar transactional communications, the decision reinforces that messages lacking promotional language are less likely to trigger TCPA advertising liability, particularly within the Third Circuit.

The opinion also highlights courts’ increasing scrutiny of repetitive TCPA filings and unsupported pleading theories. Legal and compliance professionals monitoring TCPA litigation trends may view the sanctions discussion as equally significant as the substantive dismissal itself.