Federal Court Dismisses TCPA Texting Claims in DeLancey Street Group Case

Case Snapshot

• Case: Tom v. DeLancey Street Group
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
• Decision Date: August 5, 2026
• Citation: 2026 WL 2255107
• Law: Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
• Key Issues: SMS consent, revocation of consent, Do Not Call rules, and caller ID requirements
• Outcome: The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff’s “yes” response permitted subsequent texts and that his later message did not clearly revoke consent. The court also found no private right of action for the caller ID claim at issue.

A federal court in New York has dismissed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action involving marketing text messages, addressing questions about consent, opt-out requests, and caller identification requirements.

In Tom v. DeLancey Street Group, 2026 WL 2255107 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2026), the plaintiff alleged that the company sent text messages that violated the TCPA’s Do Not Call (DNC) provisions.

The court ultimately dismissed the case after determining that the plaintiff had received only one message without prior consent and had subsequently invited additional communications.

Initial Response Established Permission for Further Messages

According to the decision, DeLancey Street Group allegedly sent the plaintiff an initial message offering information about reducing business-related payments. The text instructed the recipient to reply “Yes” for more information or “STOP” to opt out.

The plaintiff responded “yes.”

The defendant argued that the response provided permission for subsequent communications. The court agreed, finding that messages sent after the affirmative response were made with the plaintiff’s prior invitation or permission.

That determination was significant to the plaintiff’s DNC claim because the defendant argued that the plaintiff had not received the required number of unsolicited telephone solicitations necessary to support the claim.

The court did not resolve broader questions concerning whether text messages qualify as calls or whether cellular telephone numbers constitute residential lines for purposes of the TCPA’s DNC provisions.

Court Addresses Free-Form Opt-Out Message

The case also examined whether a later message from the plaintiff effectively revoked permission for further texts.

Rather than using the instructed “STOP” command, the plaintiff told the sender not to text him and to communicate by email because he was about to board a flight and expected to have limited cellular service.

The court concluded that the message did not amount to a complete revocation of consent. In context, it interpreted the request as a preference for email communications during the flight rather than an instruction permanently ending text messages.

The decision therefore highlights the importance of context when determining whether a consumer communication clearly revokes consent.

The court also noted that the defendant stopped sending text messages within four days, falling within the applicable 10-day period discussed in the decision.

Court Rejects Caller ID Claim

The plaintiff separately argued that the text messages violated TCPA-related requirements because they did not contain caller identification information.

The court rejected that argument.

Following what it described as the “majority approach,” the court concluded that there is no private right of action under the caller identification provision at issue, citing the provision’s silence regarding such a right.

As a result, the alleged absence of caller identification information did not provide an independent basis for the plaintiff’s claim.

Decision Leaves Some TCPA Questions Open

Although the court dismissed the lawsuit, it did not resolve every issue raised in the case.

In particular, the court reserved analysis of whether text messages should be treated as telephone calls and whether cellphones qualify as residential telephone lines under the TCPA’s DNC framework.

Those unresolved questions remain important as courts continue considering how traditional TCPA requirements apply to SMS communications.

Compliance Takeaways

The decision provides additional guidance for businesses using text messages to communicate with consumers. It demonstrates that an affirmative response to a marketing message can affect whether subsequent communications are considered invited or permitted.

The ruling also illustrates that courts may examine the wording and context of an opt-out request, rather than treating every request to change communication channels as a complete revocation of consent.

At the same time, businesses should continue maintaining processes for identifying and honoring valid opt-out requests in accordance with applicable TCPA requirements.